[Senate Report 109-293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 535
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 109-293
======================================================================
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
_______
July 26, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 5576]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 0000)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
the Treasury; the Executive Office of the President; and
certain independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, reports favorably
thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. deg.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $89,389,989,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations \1\....................... 102,948,146,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate.......................... 86,748,272,000
Amount of House allowance \2\........................... 86,656,536,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2006 appropriations................................. -13,558,157,000
2007 budget estimate................................ +2,641,717,000
House allowance..................................... +2,654,889,000
\1\ Includes $20,685,563,000 in emergency appropriations.
\2\ Excludes $575,200,000 considered by the House for the District of
Columbia.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Program, Project, and Activity................................... 4
Reprogramming Guidelines......................................... 4
Relationship With Budget Offices................................. 5
Congressional Budget Justifications.............................. 5
House Appropriations............................................. 7
Title I: Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 8
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 21
Federal Highway Administration............................... 39
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 51
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 57
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 66
Federal Transit Administration............................... 72
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................ 87
Maritime Administration...................................... 88
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration....... 92
Research and Innovative Technology Administration............ 94
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 95
Office of Inspector General.................................. 95
Surface Transportation Board................................. 97
Administrative Provisions--Department of Transportation...... 98
Title II: Department of the Treasury:
Departmental Offices......................................... 100
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network......................... 107
Financial Management Service................................. 108
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau..................... 109
Bureau of Engraving and Printing............................. 109
Bureau of the Public Debt.................................... 110
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund............ 111
United States Mint........................................... 112
Internal Revenue Service..................................... 112
Department of the Treasury: Administrative Provisions........ 122
Title III: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Tenant-based Rental Assistance............................... 124
Project-based Rental Assistance.............................. 127
Public Housing Capital Fund.................................. 128
Public Housing Operating Fund................................ 128
Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing [HOPE
VI]........................................................ 129
Native American Housing Block Grant.......................... 130
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account........... 131
Community Planning and Development........................... 132
Housing Programs............................................. 158
Government National Mortgage Association..................... 164
Policy Development and Research.............................. 165
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................... 166
Office of Lead Hazard Controln............................... 167
Management and Administration................................ 168
Office of Inspector General.................................. 169
Working Capital Fund..................................... 170
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight............... 170
Administrative Provisions.................................... 171
Title IV: The Judiciary:
Supreme Court of the United States........................... 173
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit....... 174
U.S. Court of International Trade............................ 175
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services................................................. 175
Defender Services............................................ 178
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners............................. 179
Court Security............................................... 179
Administrative Office of the United States Courts............ 180
Federal Judicial Center...................................... 181
Judicial Retirement Funds.................................... 182
United States Sentencing Commission.......................... 182
Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary..................... 182
Title V: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated
to the President:
Compensation of the President................................ 184
White House Office........................................... 184
Executive Residence at the White House....................... 185
Council of Economic Advisers................................. 186
Office of Policy Development................................. 186
National Security Council.................................... 187
Office of Administration..................................... 187
Office of Management and Budget.............................. 188
Office of National Drug Control Policy....................... 189
Funds Appropriated to the President.......................... 191
Unanticipated Needs.......................................... 195
Special Assistance to the President.......................... 195
Official Residence of the Vice President..................... 196
Title VI: Independent Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board... 197
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 198
Election Assistance Commission............................... 198
Federal Election Commission.................................. 199
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation........................ 199
Federal Labor Relations Authority............................ 200
Federal Maritime Commission.................................. 200
General Services Administration.............................. 201
Merit Systems Protection Board............................... 210
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation............................ 211
National Historical Publications and Records Commission...... 214
National Credit Union Administration......................... 215
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 217
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 218
Office of Government Ethics.................................. 219
Office of Personnel Management............................... 219
Office of Special Counsel.................................... 223
Selective Service System..................................... 225
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............ 225
United States Postal Service................................. 227
United States Tax Court...................................... 229
Statement Concerning General Provisions...................... 229
Title VII: General Provisions This Act........................... 230
Title VIII: General Provisions, Departments, Agencies, and
Corporations................................................... 232
Title IX: Air Transportation to and From Love Field.............. 235
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 236
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 237
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 238
Budgetary Impact Statement....................................... 249
Comparative Statement............................................ 250
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2007, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made
through either bill or report language. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee includes a provision (sec. 710) establishing
the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded
by this Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The
provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal
to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases
funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied
or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds
that were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an
existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different
from the congressional budget justifications or the table at
the end of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed.
The Committee retains the requirement that each agency
submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming
and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically,
each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must
also identify items of special congressional interest.
The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later
than June 30.
The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or
a situation that could not have been anticipated when
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year.
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before
proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
The Committee would also like to clarify that this section
applies to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that
no funds may be obligated from such funds to augment programs,
projects or activities for which appropriations have been
specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or
personnel for any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this
Act.
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,
offices, and commissions. The Committee has often pointed to
the natural affinity and relationship between the budget
offices 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 any
office or officer in the departments, agencies, and
commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and
these entities must be through the budget offices. To help
ensure the Committee's ability to perform its responsibilities,
the Committee insists on having direct, unobstructed, and
timely access to the budget offices and expects to be able to
receive forthright and complete responses from that office and
its employees.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
While the Committee supports the concept of the Program
Assessment Rating Tool [PART] as a method for evaluating
programs by linking performance, goals, and benchmarks with
funding decisions, the process has failed largely through the
inability of the administration to establish meaningful
benchmarks and program goals that can be used as a valid
measure for the success of a program and its funding
requirements/needs. In too many cases, the PART analysis
appears to be overly subjective and designed to reach certain
preconceived conclusions about a program's validity and
accomplishments and its budget needs.
This approach reduces PART's value as a tool for measuring
the contributions of a program and to what extent a program
should be funded. More troubling, OMB and Federal agencies have
tended to accommodate an increasing amount of PART performance
data in the budget justifications by eliminating fundamental
and objective programmatic budget data that is critical to the
work of the Committee. This trend has made it increasingly
difficult for the Committee to perform a meaningful review of
budget justifications, including the ability to conduct
necessary budget oversight work as well as the ability to reach
valid and comprehensive funding decisions absent a substantial
amount of additional review and budget analysis.
Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the
agency, but instead are the primary tool used by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource
requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is
aware that the format and presentation of budget materials is
largely left to the agency within presentation objectives set
forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 specifically
states that the ``agency should consult with your congressional
committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your plans
to modify the format of agency budget documents.'' The
Committee is disappointed that none of the agencies funded
under this act have recently heeded this direction.
Nevertheless, the Committee expects all the budget
justification to provide the data needed to make appropriate
and meaningful funding decisions.
While the Committee values the inclusion of performance
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that, in the
implementation of the PART analysis, vital budget information
that the Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee
directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2008
budget request by agencies funded under this act must contain
the customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements
to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail
contained in the funding table included at the end of the
report. Among other items, agencies shall provide a detailed
discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the
agency's financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed
data on all programs and comprehensive information on any
office or agency restructurings. At a minimum, each agency must
also provide adequate justification for funding and staffing
changes for each individual office and materials that compare
programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal
year 2008 to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
The Committee is aware that the analytical materials
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year
2008 budget request.
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS
The Senate Committee recommendation excludes District of
Columbia appropriations items that were funded by the House in
this bill. The Committee believes that it is appropriate to
fund those items in a separate bill. For ease of comparison,
the Committee report excludes in the ``House allowance'' those
items that are addressed in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2007, an original Senate bill.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the
offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation for Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices
for Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, and
Administration; and the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency
Response, Chief Information Officer, the General Counsel and
Public Affairs. The Office of the Secretary also includes the
Department's Office of Civil Rights and the Department's
Working Capital Fund.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $84,051,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 92,742,000
House allowance......................................... 65,973,000
Committee recommendation................................ 92,742,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation finances the costs of policy development
and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary
for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It
covers the immediate secretarial offices and the offices of the
under secretary, assistant secretaries, general counsel and
other support offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $92,742,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses. The recommendation is equal to the
budget request and $8,691,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer
up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary
to another. The Committee recommendation continues language
that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the
Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level and the budget estimate:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2006 enacted recommendation
\1\ 2007 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................ $2,176,000 $2,255,000 $2,255,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary............................... 691,000 717,000 717,000
Office of the General Counsel................................ 15,031,000 15,681,000 15,681,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy... 11,534,000 11,934,000 11,934,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.... 8,400,000 10,002,000 10,002,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs... 2,270,000 2,319,000 2,319,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......... 21,811,000 25,108,000 25,108,000
Office of Public Affairs..................................... 1,891,000 1,932,000 1,932,000
Executive Secretariat........................................ 1,428,000 1,478,000 1,478,000
Board of Contract Appeals.................................... 690,000 707,000 707,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....... 1,252,000 1,286,000 1,286,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..... 5,102,000 7,041,000 7,041,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 11,776,000 12,281,000 12,281,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and Expenses........................... 84,051,000 92,742,000 92,742,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction pursuant to division B, title III, chapter 8 of Public Law 109-148.
The Committee allows funds made available in the fiscal
year 2006 appropriations act under this section for the
Missouri Transportation Institute to cover costs incurred
retroactive to October 1, 2005.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has
the primary responsibility to provide overall planning,
direction, and control of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,255,000 for fiscal year 2007
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation
is the same as the budget request and $79,000 greater than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of
assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction
of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $717,000 for the Immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget
request and $26,000 greater than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services
to the Office of the Secretary including the conduct of
aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer
activities and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on
all legal questions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $15,681,000 for expenses of the
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2007, equal to
the budget request and $650,000 greater than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer
of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the
analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for
domestic and international transportation matters. The Office
administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the
airline industry and is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
licensing, acquisitions, international route awards,
computerized reservation systems, and special investigations
such as airline delays.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $11,934,000
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy, the same as
the budget request and $400,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. The Committee denies the transfer of two FTEs
from the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency
Response.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development,
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,002,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, the same as the
budget request and $1,602,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental
activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and
other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant
Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal
agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and
local governments and national organizations for development of
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences,
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making
process.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $2,319,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, an
amount equal to the budget request and $49,000 over the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines,
working with the operating administrations to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human
resource management, security and administrative management,
real and personal property management, and acquisition and
grants management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $25,108,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, the same as the budget
request and $3,297,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials,
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the
public and news media on transportation programs and issues. It
arranges news conferences and provides speeches, talking
points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior
departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary's
scheduling.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,932,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which is the same amount as the budget request
and $41,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external written materials.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,478,000 for the Executive
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget
request and $50,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $707,000 for the Board of Contract
Appeals, the same as the budget request and $17,000 greater
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,286,000, an amount equal to the
budget request and $34,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response
keeps the Secretary and his advisors informed on intelligence
and security issues pertaining to transportation. The office
also provides support to the Secretary for his statutory and
administrative responsibilities in the areas of emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery functions. Further, the
office ensures that transportation policy and programs support
the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and
stability, and the security of the Unites States.
The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response
is at the forefront of the Department's response to
transportation-related emergencies. To prepare for such events,
the office coordinates and conducts the Department's
participation in national and regional exercise and training
for emergency personnel; administers the Department's
Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations programs;
and coordinates DOT's role in select international contingency
plan and response initiatives. Additionally, the office
provides direct emergency response and recovery support through
the National Response Plan [NRP] and operates the Department's
Crisis Management Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the
Nation's transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
and is the Department's focal point during emergencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,042,000 for the Office of
Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The
recommendation is equal to the request and $1,940,000 more than
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee approves the
request for two additional FTEs to carry out the emergency
response functions of the office, and denies the request to
transfer two FTEs to the Office of the Under Secretary of
Transportation Policy.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves
as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving
information resources and information systems management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $12,281,000, an amount equal to
the budget request and $505,000 greater than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,464,500
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,820,900
House allowance......................................... 8,821,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,820,900
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a funding level of $8,820,900 for
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2007. The
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is
$356,400 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $14,850,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,910,000
House allowance......................................... 4,910,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,334,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research and development
activities needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of
national transportation policies. The program is carried out
primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies,
educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and
private firms.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $9,334,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, $5,516,000 less than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $424,000 more than the
President's budget request. The Committee directs funding to be
allocated to the following projects that are listed below:
TPR&D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Transportation and the $1,000,000
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Education
Training Program..............................
St. Louis University Advanced Neurosurgical 1,000,000
Innovation Center [SANIC], Missouri...........
Virtual Accident and Injury Reconstruction 2,500,000
Center, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi...................................
Maritime Fire and Safety Association, 485,000
Washington....................................
Agriculture Freight Supply Chain Analyses, 170,000
WSDOT.........................................
SR-520 Innovative Water Quality Protection 679,000
Project, Washington...........................
UVM Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, 1,000,000
Vermont.......................................
Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, 1,000,000
New York......................................
Tracking Methods for Intermodal Containerized 1,500,000
Freight, Oklahoma.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Limitation, 2006........................................ ($118,014,000)
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... (120,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (123,418,000)
\1\ Proposed without limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common
administrative services to the Department's operating
administrations and other Federal entities. The services are
centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency
and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department
operating administrations and other Federal customers and are
billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent
possible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $123,418,000 on
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The
budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on
the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating
administrations of the Department. The Committee, however,
insists that the discipline of an annual limitation is
necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working
Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, the bill
specificies that the limitation shall apply only to the
Department and not to services provided by other entities. The
Committee directs that services shall be provided on a
competitive basis to the maximum extent possible.
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriations guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006................. $891,000 ($18,367,000)
Budget estimate, 2007................ 891,000 (18,367,000)
House allowance...................... ............... (18,367,000)
Committee recommendation............. 891,000 (18,367,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $891,000 to
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $396,000 for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program. The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate
and is equal to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The
Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of
$18,367,000, the same amount as the budget request and the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,970,000
House allowance......................................... 2,970,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,970,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising
out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal
spending. It also provides support to historically black and
Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the
administration since this program provides grants and contract
assistance that serves Department-wide goals and not just OST
purposes.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,970,000 for grants and
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year
2007. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $49,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 59,400,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 59,400,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation finances the tenant-related costs for a
new Department of Transportation headquarters building. The
proposed concept would consolidate all of the department's
headquarters operating administration functions (except FAA),
from various locations in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area
into leased buildings within the central employment area of the
District of Columbia.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $59,400,000 for tenant-related
costs for new headquarters building. The recommendation is
equal to the budget estimate and $9,900,000 more than fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
Headquarters Security.--The Committee encourages the
Secretary to explore purchasing the requisite software,
hardware and installation services necessary to meet Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-12 standards. The Secretary
should explore smart card and biometric authentication for
access to critical networks and applications as well as
ingress/egress points in the new DOT headquarters building. In
addition, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize small business
concerns in meeting this requirement.
PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory \1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006 \1\........................................ $59,400,000 $50,000,000 $109,400,000
Budget estimate, 2007........................................... .............. 50,000,000 50,000,000
House allowance................................................. 67,000,000 50,000,000 117,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 67,000,000 50,000,000 117,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From overflight fees or funds otherwise provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 41742.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides additional funding for the
Essential Air Service [EAS] program, which was created as a 10-
year transition program to continue air service to communities
that had received federally mandated air service prior to
deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small
communities that meet certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from,
nor land in, the United States. These are commonly known as
overflight fees. In addition, the act stipulated that the first
$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance
the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law
requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds
available to the agency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2007, the administration proposes no
appropriated funds for the EAS program, although the budget
includes $50,000,000 for the EAS program to be funded by
overflight fees collected by the FAA. The Committee
recommendation provides a total of $117,000,000 for the
Essential Air Service program, which is comprised of an
appropriation under this heading of $67,000,000 and $50,000,000
derived from overflight fees or funds otherwise available to
the FAA. The Committee recommendation is $67,000,000 more than
the budget estimate and $7,600,000 more than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level. Based on the latest projections from the
Department of Transportation, the funding level that the
Committee recommends is sufficient to continue air service
during fiscal year 2007 for every community currently receiving
service through the EAS program as of February 1, 2006.
EAS Program Growth.--The Committee is concerned about the
substantial growth of the costs of the EAS program and about
its ability to continue to provide sufficient funding for
subsidies so that no community currently in the EAS system
loses current service levels. The Department will have to renew
a number of contracts during fiscal year 2007, and costs of the
new contracts are expected to increase due to higher fuel
prices and other factors. While the Committee's recommended
funding level attempts to account for such factors, it is clear
that the program will face additional pressure during a time of
extreme fiscal constraint. Although intended as a temporary
program, many communities depend on this air service.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Secretary to consider
implementing section 402 of Vision 100--The Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176) which permits an
increase in the rates of compensation to air carriers due to
the significant increase in the cost of fuel. This was
unanticipated and outside the control of air carriers.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of February 1, 2006 in the
continental United States and Hawaii.
SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006
[Excludes Communities in Alaska]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. Daily
Est. Miles Enplnmnts Ann. Sbsdy Total Psgrs
States/Communities to Nearest at EAS Rates at 2/ Subsidy per (YE 9/30/
Hub (S,M,or Point (YE 9/ 1/2006 Passenger 05)
L) \1\ 30/05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA:
Muscle Shoals.............................. 60 17.4 $1,364,697 $125.11 10,908
ARIZONA:
Kingman.................................... 121 6.5 $1,001,989 $245.41 4,083
Page....................................... 282 14.6 $1,057,655 $115.68 9,143
Prescott................................... 102 20.3 $1,001,989 $78.91 12,698
Show Low................................... 154 8.7 $779,325 $142.34 \2\ 5,475
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden........................... 107 6.8 $923,456 $218.10 4,234
Harrison................................... 80 11.6 $1,385,183 $190.35 7,277
Hot Springs................................ 51 10.3 $923,456 $143.73 6,425
Jonesboro.................................. 82 8.4 $923,456 $176.13 5,243
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City.............................. 223 38.2 $816,025 $34.16 23,885
Merced..................................... 60 27.5 $645,751 $37.46 17,237
Visalia.................................... 47 4.2 $450,000 $173.14 2,599
COLORADO:
Alamosa.................................... 164 16.9 $1,083,538 $102.29 10,593
Cortez..................................... 255 25.8 $853,587 $52.77 16,175
Pueblo..................................... 36 4.9 $780,997 $255.06 3,062
GEORGIA:
Athens..................................... 72 23.2 $392,108 $27.01 14,516
HAWAII:
Hana....................................... 35 ( \3\ ) $774,718 ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
Kalaupapa.................................. ........... ( \3\ ) $331,981 ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
Kamuela.................................... 39 ( \3\ ) $395,053 ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
ILLINOIS:
Decatur.................................... 126 34.5 $954,404 $44.20 21,594
Marion/Herrin.............................. 123 36.6 $1,251,069 $54.60 22,913
Quincy..................................... 111 27.4 $1,097,406 $63.91 17,170
IOWA:
Burlington................................. 74 22.1 $1,077,847 $77.99 13,820
Fort Dodge................................. 91 26.8 $1,080,386 $64.37 16,784
Mason City................................. 131 43.6 $1,080,386 $39.59 27,289
KANSAS:
Dodge City................................. 150 12.5 $1,379,419 $176.22 7,828
Garden City................................ 202 28.4 $1,733,997 $97.53 17,780
Great Bend................................. 114 2.5 $621,945 $403.08 1,543
Hays....................................... 175 24.9 $1,540,392 $98.83 15,586
Liberal/Guymon, OK......................... 138 13.9 $1,008,582 $116.14 8,684
Manhattan.................................. 122 32.3 $360,803 $17.82 20,243
Salina..................................... 97 7.6 $360,803 $75.75 4,763
KENTUCKY:
Owensboro.................................. 105 10.3 $1,127,453 $175.64 6,419
MAINE:
Augusta/Waterville......................... 67 14.8 $1,065,475 $114.83 9,279
Bar Harbor................................. 144 33.4 $1,065,475 $50.91 20,928
Presque Isle............................... 262 52.9 $1,116,423 $33.73 33,097
Rockland................................... 81 23.0 $1,065,475 $73.87 14,424
MARYLAND:
Hagerstown................................. 60 20.6 $649,929 $50.42 12,891
MICHIGAN:
Escanaba................................... 112 35.9 $290,952 $12.96 22,450
Iron Mountain/Kingsford.................... 105 29.0 $602,761 $33.19 18,163
Ironwood/Ashland, WI....................... 213 10.4 $409,242 $62.68 6,529
Manistee/Ludington......................... 110 7.9 $776,051 $156.40 4,962
MINNESOTA:
Chisholm/Hibbing........................... 199 33.7 $1,279,329 $60.72 21,069
Thief River Falls.......................... 305 15.2 $777,709 $81.73 9,516
MISSISSIPPI:
Laurel/Hattiesburg......................... 89 48.1 $1,100,253 $36.55 30,106
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau............................. 127 20.3 $1,147,453 $90.15 12,728
Fort Leonard Wood.......................... 85 25.3 $683,201 $43.05 15,869
Joplin..................................... 70 30.9 $755,762 $39.01 19,374
Kirksville................................. 137 4.4 $840,200 $306.42 2,742
MONTANA:
Glasgow.................................... 285 6.9 $823,591 $190.25 4,329
Glendive................................... 222 3.6 $823,591 $368.17 2,237
Havre...................................... 230 5.0 $823,591 $263.55 3,125
Lewistown.................................. 103 2.8 $823,591 $472.78 1,742
Miles City................................. 145 3.9 $823,591 $341.17 2,414
Sidney..................................... 272 11.5 $823,591 $114.71 7,180
West Yellowstone........................... 332 13.8 $418,488 $48.32 8,660
Wolf Point................................. 293 5.7 $823,591 $229.60 3,587
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................................... 233 4.5 $655,898 $233.25 2,812
Chadron.................................... 290 4.9 $655,898 $215.54 3,043
Grand Island............................... 138 24.3 $1,198,396 $78.89 15,190
Kearney.................................... 181 21.1 $1,166,849 $88.32 13,212
McCook..................................... 256 6.3 $1,502,651 $379.55 3,959
North Platte............................... 255 24.7 $870,504 $56.29 15,465
Scottsbluff................................ 192 28.5 $494,887 $27.75 17,836
NEVADA:
Ely........................................ 234 6.9 $698,078 $161.33 4327
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Lebanon.................................... 72 28.4 $998,752 $56.21 17,769
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo/Holoman AFB..................... 89 ( \4\ ) $592,170 ( \4\ ) ( \4\ )
Carlsbad................................... 149 14.0 $599,671 $68.63 8,738
Clovis..................................... 102 6.8 $859,057 $201.75 4,258
Hobbs...................................... 90 4.9 $519,614 $168.21 3,089
Silver City/Hurley/Deming.................. 134 6.6 $859,057 $206.85 4,153
NEW YORK:
Jamestown.................................. 68 26.6 $501,937 $30.10 16,676
Massena.................................... 138 10.7 $585,945 $87.85 6,670
Ogdensburg................................. 105 6.4 $585,945 $146.67 3,995
Plattsburgh................................ 82 4.1 $753,964 $294.17 2,563
Saranac Lake............................... 132 7.4 $753,964 $161.83 4,659
Watertown.................................. 54 16.7 $585,945 $56.11 10,443
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake................................ 402 7.2 $1,329,858 $296.18 4,490
Dickinson.................................. 319 16.4 $1,697,248 $165.75 10,240
Jamestown.................................. 333 9.9 $1,351,677 $217.63 6,211
OKLAHOMA:
Enid....................................... 84 3.5 $636,279 $289.88 2,195
Ponca City................................. 80 2.6 $636,279 $387.03 1,644
OREGON:
Pendleton.................................. 185 21.6 $649,974 $47.99 13,545
PENNSYLVANIA:
Altoona.................................... 112 20.9 $893,774 $68.16 13,112
Bradford................................... 77 19.3 $501,937 $41.48 12,102
Du Bois.................................... 112 33.2 $643,818 $31.01 20,764
Johnstown.................................. 84 39.3 $464,777 $18.89 24,610
Lancaster.................................. 69 19.0 $1,611,707 $135.72 11,875
Oil City/Franklin.......................... 85 10.3 $683,636 $105.78 6,463
PUERTO RICO:
Mayaguez................................... 105 33.3 $688,551 $33.08 \2\ 20,818
Ponce...................................... 77 11.2 $622,056 $88.54 \2\ 7,025
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings.................................. 206 2.5 $1,039,364 $677.11 1,535
Huron...................................... 281 4.6 $1,039,364 $361.27 2,877
Pierre..................................... 395 20.3 $449,912 $35.43 12,699
Watertown.................................. 207 31.1 $1,211,589 $62.30 19,448
TENNESSEE:
Jackson.................................... 86 7.2 $1,179,026 $261.54 4,508
TEXAS:
Victoria................................... 93 34.3 $510,185 $23.76 21,470
UTAH:
Cedar City................................. 179 42.4 $1,068,607 $40.22 26,567
Moab....................................... 256 3.1 $674,804 $344.99 1,956
Vernal..................................... 150 4.6 $595,436 $208.56 2,855
VERMONT:
Rutland.................................... 69 6.7 $849,705 $202.89 4,188
VIRGINIA:
Staunton................................... 113 18.3 $650,123 $56.73 11,460
WASHINGTON:
Ephrata/Moses Lake......................... 102 11.8 $1,698,922 $230.30 7,377
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley.................................... 168 6.3 $977,858 $247.12 3,957
Bluefield/Princeton........................ 133 6.3 $977,858 $247.25 3,955
Clarksburg/Fairmont........................ 96 27.6 $306,109 $17.72 17,270
Greenbrier/W.SulphSpr/LWB.................. 166 15.8 $540,579 $54.50 9,918
Morgantown................................. 75 35.7 $306,109 $13.68 22,379
Parkersburg................................ 110 52.0 $439,115 $13.50 32,528
WYOMING:
Laramie.................................... 145 27.1 $397,400 $23.44 16,956
Riverton................................... 305 37.6 $394,046 $16.75 23,519
Rock Springs............................... 189 45.0 $390,488 $13.85 28,195
Sheridan................................... 132 42.0 $336,701 $12.79 26,318
Worland.................................... 161 6.1 $797,844 $208.42 3,828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the changes in enplanement levels at the
specific hub and at all airports Nationwide.
\2\ 11 months annualized.
\3\ Incomplete traffic data.
\4\ Service hiatus.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Section 101. The Committee authorizes the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration to reimburse amounts made
available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) from fees credited
under 49 U.S.C. 45303.
Section 102. The Committee authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to transfer to the account called ``Minority
Business Outreach'' unexpended balances from the bonding
assistance program funded out of the account ``Office of the
Secretary, Salaries and Expenses.''
Section 103. The Committee prohibits the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation from obligating funds originally
provided to a modal administration in order to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements, unless the Department
follows the regular process for reprogramming funds, including
congressional notification.
Section 104. The Committee prohibits the Department of
Transportation from amending regulations that define ``actual
control'' of a domestic air carrier under the proposed ``open
skies'' policy.
Federal Aviation Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the
safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national
system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in
civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch
within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce
Act of 1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air
commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate,
and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the
creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of
Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal
Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within
DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with
enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased
to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil
aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation
Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the
new Transportation Security Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2007 amounts to $8,366,000,000, which is $261,860,000 more
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The following table
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
2006 enacted 2007 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations............................................. $8,104,000,000 $8,366,000,000 $8,366,000,000
General fund appropriation......................... ................. 2,921,000,000 2,921,000,000
Trust fund appropriation........................... (5,485,590,000) (5,445,000,000) (5,445,000,000)
Flight service stations transition costs........... (148,500,000) ................. .................
Facilities and equipment \1\........................... 2,555,000,000 2,503,000,000 2,549,510,000
Research, engineering, and development................. 136,620,000 130,000,000 135,500,000
Grants-in-aid for airports............................. 3,514,500,000 2,750,000,000 3,520,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 14,310,000,000 13,749,000,000 14,571,010,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include emergency appropriation of $40,600,000 in Public Law 108-324.
OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,104,141,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,366,000,000
House allowance......................................... 8,360,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,366,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
international, commercial space, medical, engineering and
development programs, as well as policy oversight and agency
management functions. The operations appropriation includes the
following major activities: (1) the air traffic organization
which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, the national air
traffic system, including the establishment and maintenance of
a national system of aids to navigation, the development and
distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of
acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) the
regulation and certification activities including establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety and
development of standards, rules and regulations governing the
physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an
aviation medical research program; (3) the office of commercial
space transportation; and (4) headquarters, administration and
other staff and support offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $8,366,000,000 for FAA
operations, an increase of $261,860,000 above the level
provided for fiscal year 2006 and the same as the budget
estimate. The Committee recommendation derives $5,445,000,000
of the appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund.
The level is equal to the budget estimate. The balance of the
appropriation will be drawn from the general fund of the
Treasury.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air
traffic control system.
Second Career Training Program.--The Committee includes
language which prohibits the use of funds for the second career
training program.
Sunday Premium Pay.--The Committee prohibits FAA from
paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases where the
individual actually worked on a Sunday.
Manned Auxiliary Flight Service Stations.--The Committee
continues a prohibition against the use of funds for operating
a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous
United States.
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography.--The Committee
prohibits the use of funds to conduct aeronautical charting and
cartography [AC&C] activities through the working capital fund
[WCF]. Public Law 106-181 had authorized the transfer of these
activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA.
Government-issued Credit Cards.--The Committee prohibits
the use of a government-issued credit card to purchase a store
gift card or gift certificate.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal
year 2006 enacted level:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
2007 budget recommendation
2006 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization..................................... $6,549,758 $6,704,223 $6,690,108
Aviation Safety.............................................. 948,957 981,668 997,718
Commercial Space Transportation.............................. 11,641 11,985 11,722
Financial Services........................................... 50,473 94,708 93,620
Human Resource Management.................................... 69,244 87,850 87,850
Region and Center Operations................................. 149,237 272,821 272,821
Staff Offices................................................ 140,580 175,392 175,655
Information Services......................................... 35,751 36,779 36,506
Flight Service Stations Transition........................... 148,500 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................. 8,117,083 8,366,000 8,366,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
The Committee recommends $6,690,108,000 for the Air Traffic
Organization to operate and maintain the national air traffic
control system. The recommended level is $140,350,000 more than
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee is confident
that the recommended funding level is sufficient to continue
safe and efficient management of the National Airspace System
[NAS].
Air Traffic Controller Contract.--Recently, the FAA
implemented a new contract for its air traffic controller
workforce. Under this contract, most current air traffic
controllers would continue to receive their existing base
salaries and benefits while newly hired controllers would be
hired at lower wage rates. The FAA has maintained that this
contract will result in significant cost savings, freeing up
resources for other critical agency needs. However, the
Committee is concerned that the imposition of these new
contract terms could result in an even larger number of senior
controllers choosing to retire than was originally contemplated
by the FAA. Given the overarching need for the agency to retain
a seasoned and experienced workforce to maintain safety, the
Committee plans to monitor this situation carefully. As such,
in addition to the prompt and regular submission of the
controller workforce staffing plan, the Committee directs FAA
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
on the extent of controller retirements and any trends they are
experiencing in comparison to the number of retirements
anticipated by the FAA for the current year and the number of
retirements experienced in prior years. This report is due no
later than April 15, 2007.
FAA Workforce Plans.--The bill includes provisions that
require the FAA to submit to Congress its annual air traffic
controller workforce plan by March 1 of each year, and that
would reduce the appropriation to the FAA's Operations account
by $100,000 for each day that the report is late. The Committee
is greatly frustrated by the FAA's failure to transmit an
update to its workforce plan. The original plan was transmitted
to Congress in December 2004, and despite promises that the
plan would be updated annually, the Committee is still waiting
for the revised plan. On May 4, 2006, the Administrator
testified before the Committee that an updated report would be
submitted in a short period of time. The report, however, is
now seven months late. The Committee directs the FAA to submit
its 2006 plan immediately. The Committee also notes that half
of the FAA's inspector workforce is expected to retire by the
year 2010. The Committee believes that an effective safety
staff is vital to protecting the public, and that supporting
this staff is essential to ensuring the safety of an increasing
complex aviation system. Consequently, the bill includes a
provision that requires the FAA to submit to Congress a
workforce plan that describes a strategy for maintaining a
sufficient aviation safety staff that is similar in its content
and identical in its format to the air traffic controller
workforce plan. The Committee expects the aviation safety
workforce plan will provide a background to the current
staffing levels, describe the challenges to hiring sufficient
safety staff, forecast expected attrition, set specific and
realistic hiring targets over a ten-year period, and detail
strategies for meeting staffing needs through better management
practices in the same manner as was utilized in the initial air
traffic controller workforce plan. The bill includes a
provision that would reduce the appropriation to the FAA's
Operations account by $100,000 for each day that the report is
late.
Air Traffic Control Supervisor Staffing.--The Committee
remains concerned that there are not enough Air Traffic Control
Supervisors in place to assure flight safety. Additional
supervisors are necessary to reduce operational errors that
have led to dangerous runway incursions and serious in flight
errors. To remedy this, Congress mandated in fiscal year 2005
Transportation Appropriations bill that the FAA have 1,846
supervisors in place by September 30, 2005. The FAA only had
1,801 in September and the number has since fallen to 1,777 on
March 18, 2006 at the same time operational errors continue to
rise. We are concerned that the FAA is moving in the wrong
direction and is not promoting controllers to supervisory
ranks. The Committee expects the FAA to fill supervisor
vacancies and to meet the mandated floor of 1,846 Supervisors.
The Committee directs FAA to submit a report by January 31,
2007, stating how many Air Traffic Control Supervisors are in
place on September 30, 2006 and the FAA's plan to hire
additional supervisors to address the problem of increased
operational errors.
Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].--The Committee recommends
$1,600,000 to continue the implementation of the Alien Species
Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA as part of its August
26, 1998, record of decision approving certain improvements at
Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds will be used
to execute capital projects and continue the operational
requirements imposed by the ASAP.
AVIATION SAFETY
The Committee recommends $997,718,000 for aviation safety.
The recommendation is $48,761,000 more than the enacted level.
Aviation Safety Inspectors and Aircraft Certification
Staff.--The Committee provides $48,711,612 for aviation safety,
an increase of $16,000,000 over the budget request to increase
critical safety staff in the Office of Aviation Flight
Standards [AFS] and the Office of Aircraft Certification [AIR].
The bill specifies that $32,474,408--or two-thirds of the total
funding for aviation safety--shall be used to increase the
staff of the AFS office and that $16,237,204--or one-third of
the total--shall be used to increase the staff of the AIR
office. The bill also prohibits the FAA from reprogramming
those funds between the two offices or transferring the funds
to any other activity.
For fiscal year 2006, the Committee provided $12,000,000
above the budget request with the expectation that the FAA
would increase safety staff by 238 new safety personnel. This
increase in funding included $8,000,000 for AFS inpectors, and
$4,000,000 for AIR safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and
scientists. In May, the Committee was disappointed to learn
that the FAA would be able to add only 171 new employees to its
safety staff. The Committee recognizes that the across-the-
board cut and mandatory pay raise enacted for fiscal year 2006
constrains the FAA's ability to hire more aggressively;
however, the Committee remains convinced that the staffing
levels in the offices of flight standards and aircraft
certification are not satisfactory. The Committee is especially
concerned that the dearth of safety inspectors limits the FAA's
ability to protect the safety of our air transportation system.
Finally, the Committee is frustrated by the FAA's failure
to provide timely information on its hiring practices. The
Committee repeatedly requested for information from the FAA on
the progress the agency was making in increasing its safety
staff, but never received an adequate response until days
before the Committee held a hearing on the FAA's budget.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that FAA has not yet followed
directions in the Statement of Managers of the 2006 Act that
instructs the FAA to provide semi-annual reports on its safety
staff. In light of this communication gap, the bill now
includes a requirement for the FAA to provide quarterly reports
on the agency's progress in increasing the staff of its safety
offices.
Medallion Program.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to
continue the medallion five star shield program, a key safety
initiative in the FAA's current strategic plan for reducing
general aviation accidents in Alaska.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,514,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,503,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,110,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,549,510,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides
funding for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation
also finances major capital investments required by other
agency programs, experimental research and development
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and
capacity of the airspace system. The program aims to keep pace
with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain
in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's
comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,549,510,000
for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee recommendation is $46,510,000
more than the budget estimate and $34,910,000 more than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The bill provides that
$2,101,610,000 is available for obligation until September 30,
2009, and $447,900,000 is available until September 30, 2007.
The Committee recommendations focus on reinforcing greater
accountability and mission goals, and strive for better or
alternative ways of improving and modernizing the system.
Furthermore, in reviewing the budget estimate for this account,
the Committee has placed priority on funding programs necessary
to upgrade current equipment for future capacity requirements
or programs that will enable the FAA to proceed with
initiatives to improve safety and initiatives to alleviate
congestion, reduce aircraft spacing, and increase the
efficiency of the NAS.
The Committee reiterates the need for the FAA to take
immediate steps to control personnel cost growth and to impose
budget and schedule discipline on major acquisition programs in
a time of fiscal constraints and declining capital budget
funding. Our Nation's air traffic control system has failed to
keep up with the increasing and changing demands of civil
aviation, and the FAA will not be able to meet future demands
and needs without changing and improving the ways the agency
modernizes the NAS. This challenge is unlikely to be met
without changing the FAA culture. Ultimately, changing the FAA
culture is a long-term proposition, but the failure to do so
will harm the aviation industry, inconvenience the flying
public, and serve as an obstacle to national economic growth.
Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the
fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Facilities and
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure
of budget activities.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2007 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development,
Testing and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and $45,100,000 $50,100,000
Prototyping........................
Safe Flight 21 (SF-21).............. 19,700,000 30,700,000
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) 1,000,000 1,000,000
Applications.......................
Next Generation VHF Air/Ground 25,000,000 25,000,000
Communications System (NEXCOM).....
Traffic Management Advisor (TMA).... 37,600,000 37,600,000
NAS Improvement of System Support 1,000,000 1,000,000
Laboratory.........................
William J. Hughes Technical Center 12,000,000 12,000,000
Facilities.........................
William J. Hughes Technical Center 4,200,000 4,200,000
Infrastructure Sustainment.........
System-Wide Information Management 24,000,000 24,000,000
(SWIM).............................
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation....... 80,000,000 80,000,000
-------------------------------
Total, Activity 1................. 249,600,000 265,600,000
===============================
Activity 2, Procurement and
Modernization of Air Traffic Control
Facilities and Equipment:
En Route Programs:
En Route Automation 375,700,000 375,700,000
Modernization (ERAM)...........
En Route Systems Modification... 27,500,000 27,500,000
Next Generation Weather Radar 2,000,000 2,000,000
(NEXRAD)--Provide..............
Weather and Radar Processor 7,400,000 7,400,000
(WARP).........................
ARTCC Building Improvements/ 51,000,000 51,000,000
Plant Improvements.............
Air Traffic Management (ATM).... 78,850,000 78,850,000
Air/Ground Communications 16,500,000 16,500,000
Infrastructure.................
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)-- 16,400,000 16,400,000
Replacement....................
Air Traffic Control En route 5,000,000 5,000,000
Radar Facilities Improvements..
En Route Communications and 1,883,769 1,883,769
Control Facilities Improvements
Integrated Terminal Weather 20,900,000 20,900,000
System (ITWS)..................
FAA Telecommunications 28,000,000 28,000,000
Infrastructure (FTI)...........
Oceanic Automation System....... 31,350,000 31,350,000
Air Traffic Operations 6,000,000 6,000,000
Management System (ATOMS)......
Voice Switching and Control 15,000,000 15,000,000
System (VSCS)..................
En Route Communications Gateway 4,200,000 4,200,000
(ECG)..........................
Volcano Monitoring.............. .............. 5,000,000
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection 63,600,000 63,600,000
Equipment--Model X (ASDE-X)....
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar 12,500,000 12,500,000
(TDWR)--Provide................
Standard Terminal Automation 49,200,000 49,200,000
Replacement System (STARS)
(TAMR Phase 1)................
Terminal Automation Program..... 13,800,000 13,800,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control 124,000,000 149,000,000
Facilities--Replace............
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach 44,233,563 44,233,563
Control (TRACON) Facilities--
Improve........................
Terminal Voice Switch 11,300,000 11,300,000
Replacement (TVSR)/Enhancement
Terminal Voice Switch (ETVS)...
NAS Facilities OSHA and 25,000,000 25,000,000
Environmental Standards
Compliance.....................
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR- 15,900,000 15,900,000
9).............................
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11). 44,050,000 44,050,000
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer..... 2,300,000 2,300,000
Precision Runway Monitors....... 2,600,000 2,600,000
Terminal Radar (ASR)--Improve... 2,022,848 3,532,848
Terminal Communications--Improve 1,348,887 1,348,887
Runway Status Lights (RWSL)..... 13,700,000 13,700,000
Terminal Automation 30,450,000 30,450,000
Modernization/Replacement
Program (TAMR Phase 2).........
National Airspace System Voice 1,000,000 1,000,000
Switch (NVS)...................
Weather System Processor (WSP).. 1,000,000 1,000,000
NAS Infrastructure Management 5,000,000 5,000,000
System (NIMS)..................
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing 5,000,000 5,000,000
System (ASOS)..................
FSAS Operational and 8,300,000 8,300,000
Supportability Implementation
System (OASIS).................
Flight Service Station (FSS) 6,000,000 6,000,000
Modernization..................
Landing and Nav Aids:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range 5,000,000 5,000,000
(VOR) with Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME)................
Instrument Landing System (ILS)-- 4,000,000 8,000,000
Establish......................
Wide Area Augmentation System 122,400,000 97,400,000
(WAAS) for GPS.................
Runway Visual Range (RVR)....... 5,000,000 5,000,000
LORAN-C......................... .............. 10,000,000
Navigation and Landing Aids-- 4,270,933 4,270,933
Improve........................
Approach Lighting System 12,000,000 22,000,000
Improvement Program (ALSIP)....
Distance Measuring Equipment 5,000,000 5,000,000
(DME)..........................
Visual Navaids--Establish/Expand 2,000,000 2,000,000
Instrument Approach Procedures 9,300,000 9,300,000
Automation (IAPA)..............
Navigation and Landing Aids-- 5,000,000 5,000,000
Service Life Extension Program
(SLEP).........................
VASI Replacement--Replace with 3,000,000 3,000,000
Precision Approach Indicator...
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement 5,800,000 5,800,000
and Monitoring.................
FAA Buildings and Equipment..... 12,000,000 12,000,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC 3,000,000 3,000,000
Facilities (Local Projects)....
Aircraft Related Equipment 11,000,000 11,000,000
Program........................
Computer Aided Engineering and 1,500,000 1,500,000
Graphics (CAEG)--Modernization.
Airport Cable Loop Systems-- 5,000,000 5,000,000
Sustained Support..............
Alaskan NAS Interfacility 2,240,000 2,240,000
Communications System (ANICS)..
Facilities Decommissioning--NDB. 12,600,000 12,600,000
Electrical Power System--Sustain/ 38,000,000 38,000,000
Support........................
-------------------------------
Total, Activity 2............. 1,438,100,000 1,468,610,000
===============================
Activity 3, Procurement and
Modernization of Non-Air Traffic
Control Facilities and Equipment:
Support Programs:
Hazardous Materials Management.. 20,000,000 20,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System 14,500,000 14,500,000
(ASAS).........................
Logistics Support Systems and 1,000,000 1,000,000
Facilities (LSSF)..............
Test Equipment--Maintenance 1,500,000 1,500,000
Support for Replacement........
National Airspace System (NAS) 10,000,000 10,000,000
Recovery Communications (RCOM).
Facility Security Risk 25,000,000 25,000,000
Management.....................
Information Security............ 12,000,000 12,000,000
System Approach for Safety 17,300,000 17,300,000
Oversight (SASO)...............
Aviation Safety Knowledge 4,600,000 4,600,000
Management Environment (ASKME).
Training, Equipment and Facilities:
Aeronautical Center 13,800,000 13,800,000
Infrastructure Modernization...
National Airspace System (NAS) 14,000,000 14,000,000
Training Facilities............
Distance Learning............... 1,500,000 1,500,000
-------------------------------
Total, Activity 3............. 135,200,000 135,200,000
===============================
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment
Mission Support:
System Support and Support Services:
System Engineering and 25,900,000 25,900,000
Development Support............
Program Support Leases.......... 45,000,000 45,000,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS) 7,900,000 7,900,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical 13,500,000 13,500,000
Center Leases..................
Transition Engineering Support.. 24,700,000 24,700,000
Frequency and Spectrum 4,500,000 4,500,000
Engineering....................
Technical Support Services 35,000,000 35,000,000
Contract (TSSC)................
Resource Tracking Program (RTP). 1,700,000 1,700,000
Center for Advanced Aviation 70,000,000 70,000,000
System Development (CAASD).....
NOTAMS and Aeronautical 4,000,000 4,000,000
Information Programs...........
-------------------------------
Total, Activity 4............. 232,200,000 232,200,000
===============================
Activity 5, Personnel Compensation,
Benefits, and Travel:
Personnel and Related Expenses...... 447,900,000 447,900,000
-------------------------------
Total, Activity 5................. 447,900,000 447,900,000
===============================
Total, All Activities............. 2,503,000,000 2,549,510,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping [ATDP] program
develops and validates technologies that support a range of
timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering,
Development, Test and Evaluation activity. The Committee
recommends $50,100,000 to be distributed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion reduction program..................... $8,000,000
System capacity, planning, and improvement............. 5,500,000
General aviation and vertical flight technology program 2,000,000
Operational concept validation......................... 3,000,000
Safer skies............................................ 3,600,000
Wake turbulence........................................ 1,000,000
Airspace management laboratory......................... 4,000,000
NAS requirements....................................... 800,000
Wind profiling and weather research Juneau............. 1,100,000
Runway obstruction warning system...................... 2,000,000
Mobile object infrastructure technology................ 3,000,000
Airspace redesign...................................... 2,800,000
ATO strategy and evaluation............................ 2,000,000
Energy management and efficiency compliance............ 5,000,000
Market based competitive sourcing...................... 3,800,000
Dynamic capital planning............................... 2,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway Obstruction Warning System.--The Committee
recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the ATDP budget line
to continue development, enhancement, and evaluation of the
Runway Obstruction Warning System at the test bed at Gulfport-
Biloxi Airport.
Mobile Object Infrastructure Technology.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 to advance technology to pre-deployment
status and demonstrate the mobile object infrastructure
technology's ability to provide remote maintenance and
monitoring; data collection from disparate and unspecified
sources; quality assurance in a secure and dynamic
infrastructure; and, to establish one of FAA's labs as an
official system wide information management node.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee supports the Safe Flight 21
program and recommends $30,700,000, an increase of $11,000,000
above the budget estimate. The Committee is disappointed that
the administration has slashed the overall funding for Safe
Flight 21; a program that is critical to the safety of general
aviation in Alaska. The Committee urges the administration and
FAA to be more sensitive to this and other important aviation
programs.
System-Wide Information Management [SWIM].--The bill
includes $24,000,000 for the System Wide Information Management
[SWIM] program, which will provide the foundation necessary for
transforming the national airspace system into a network-
centric operation. The Committee urges the FAA not to focus on
narrowly defined connectivity projects and upgrades for
existing FAA systems, and instead directs the FAA to use the
funding provided to continue the developments in the overall
SWIM architecture, standards, core information services, and
demonstrations that are underway in the Global Communications,
Navigation, Surveillance System program. In addition, the
Committee urges the FAA to align its work on SWIM with the
efforts of the Joint Planning and Development Office to build
the next generation air transportation system. The Committee
directs the FAA to submit a report to the Committee not later
than January 30, 2007, that details how the agency will spend
the $24,000,000 provided for SWIM, including how much of the
funding will be spent directly on SWIM systems architecture,
standards and core information services. The Committee expects
that all major information and automation programs in the
national airspace system will use their existing program funds
to support connectivity to the SWIM architecture. The Committee
directs the FAA to highlight its plans and the funds allocated
for achieving SWIM compliance and connectivity for each
appropriate item in the Facilities and Equipment account in the
agency's budget justifications for fiscal year 2008.
Volcano Monitoring.--The Committee recommendation provides
$5,000,000 to continue the volcano monitoring program.
Air Traffic Control Training Simulators.--The Committee
recommends that the FAA continue to procure control tower
simulators under an existing Air Force contract, which was a
full and open competition, in order to continue upgrading their
training capabilities in order to meet the needs identified in
the Controller Workforce Plan [CWP] and the Capital Investment
Plan [CIP]. The Committee understands that the FAA can request
the Air Force to extend the existing contract by making a
formal request to the Air Force to extend the time and pricing
considerations. Currently, there are 121 tower control training
simulators in place supporting ATC training in the United
States with the military, the FAA and several universities that
support the FAA's Collegiate Training Initiative [CTI] program.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.--The
Committee recommendation includes $149,000,000 for new and
replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON
consolidation projects, an increase of $25,000,000 from the
budget request. Funding shall be available for the following
projects in the corresponding amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalamazoo, MI........................................... $1,800,000
West Palm Beach, FL..................................... 10,000,000
Reno, NV................................................ 2,500,000
Cleveland, OH........................................... 3,700,000
Memphis, TN............................................. 22,400,000
Jeffco, CO.............................................. 4,200,000
Palm Springs, CA........................................ 2,000,000
Houston, TX............................................. 2,000,000
Gulfport, MS............................................ 10,000,000
Las Vegas, NV........................................... 55,000,000
Pensacola, FL........................................... 1,100,000
Boise, ID............................................... 7,000,000
Dayton, OH.............................................. 2,200,000
Barnstable, MA.......................................... 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprogramming of Appropriated Funds for Tower and TRACON
Replacements.--The Committee notes that the FAA has initiated
an effort to evaluate and prioritize the need to replace
individual air traffic control towers and terminal radar
approach control facilities. Part of this effort has included
the preparation of a long-overdue accounting of prior-
appropriated funds for this activity. Too often in the past,
the FAA has delayed the construction of necessary projects for
which funds had already been appropriated in order to reprogram
resources to alternative projects without congressional
notification or consultation. Most recently, the FAA has sought
to alter this practice by seeking a formal reprogramming of
funds toward the replacement of LaGuardia tower [LGA]. Much of
this funding proposed to be reprogrammed for the LGA tower is
to be derived from monies appropriated for some 20 other
projects in 2004 and 2005.
At this point in time, the Committee has no choice but to
approve this reprogramming. Much of the funding proposed for
reprogramming was initially appropriated in 2004 and is now at
risk of lapsing due to the agency's failure to spend the
funding on the projects for which they were intended. For
example, almost none of the funds that the Committee
appropriated for fiscal year 2004 for the replacement of towers
at Las Vegas, Nevada, Missoula, Montana, Traverse City,
Michigan, Dayton, Ohio, and Kalamazoo, Michigan have been
spent. The FAA has stated that they are likely to pursue those
projects some time in the future and, if necessary, seek
additional funding to complete them either through additional
reprogrammings or through new requests for appropriations. The
Committee should not have to appropriate funding twice for the
same project due to the agency's bureaucratic dithering and its
failure to rapidly initiate design and construction of the
projects that have been funded. Moreover, the Committee is
concerned that the FAA's commitment to seek the necessary
funding to complete these projects at some later time might
prove to be a hollow promise, given the administration's
propensity to propose funding cuts for the aviation capital
programs and the pressure the FAA will face to fund other
modernization needs.
As such, the Committee has appropriated $25,000,000 in this
bill to immediately replace the funds that have been
reprogrammed away from tower projects that have not yet been
completed and will need more funds in the future. These funds
have been provided in lieu of funding the Administrator's
request for the Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] which the
Committee views as a lower priority. In making these funds
available now, the Committee directs the Administrator to move
out immediately with the completion of these projects. The
Committee expects the Administrator to revisit her schedule for
initiating design and construction for the projects cited
above. The Committee has no intention of waiting until 2010 or
later to see construction contracts awarded for tower
replacement projects that received initial appropriations as
long ago as 2001. In the future, baring any unusual
circumstance, the Committee expects the FAA to restrict funding
for any specific tower replacement to the facility for which it
is appropriated.
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$44,050,000, the same amount as the budget request. The ASR-11
program will replace 100 existing FAA radar systems at low-to-
medium density terminal facilities.
The Committee is aware of the desire for a terminal radar
to serve the regions of Utah County, Utah and Las Vegas,
Nevada. The Committee encourages the FAA to work with Utah
County, Utah and Las Vegas, Nevada to improve radar coverage
for both areas.
Terminal Radar [ASR]--Improve.--The Committee has provided
$3,532,848 for the improvement of terminal radar [ASR]
infrastructure throughout the NAS. Within the amount provided,
$600,000 shall be for in-service engineering and $1,422,848
shall be for radar improvements in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dallas-Fort
Worth, Texas; Tampa, Florida; Azle, Texas, Denver, Colorado;
and Roanoke, Virginia. The remaining $1,510,000 shall be for
the relocation of the ASR-8 radar at Bismarck, North Dakota.
Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.--The
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for establishment of instrument
landing systems. The Committee directs funds to be distributed
as follows:
$1,300,000 to establish an ILS at Aiken Municipal Airport,
South Carolina;
$750,000 to establish and ILS at Alliance Municipal Airport
in Alliance, Nebraska;
$2,200,000 To upgrade ILS to Category III on Runway 31,
Atlantic City, New Jersey; and
$2,400,000 To acquire and install ILS at Council Bluffs
Municipal Airport, Iowa.
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The
Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the procurement and
installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including
high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing
lights [ALSF-2] and medium intensity approach lighting system
[MALSR]. The amount provided is $8,000,000 more than the budget
request. The Committee expects that $4,000,000 of the amount
provided above the request shall be used to install previously
procured MALSR systems presently stored in the FAA depot,
utilizing the same four-phase approach presently being utilized
for the installation of these systems: $1,000,000, the
Committee expects the FAA to procure two Low Cost MALSR systems
for the continued evaluation of this new technology system,
which will reduce life cycle costs; and the recommendation
includes $5,000,000 to continue the program of providing
lighting systems at rural airfields throughout Alaska.
Loran-C.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue
the program to modernize the Loran-C navigation system. The
Committee is aware that recapitalization of the loran
radionavigational system in the contiguous United States has
largely been completed, but notes that substantial work remains
in Alaska. Ultimately there needs to be a resolution between
the GPS system and Loran-C. The best system deserves concrete
investment. The Committee strongly believe there should be a
worldwide system subject to rational criteria.
Stand Alone Weather Sensors.--The Committee notes that the
budget does not request funding for the Stand Alone Weather
Sensors program. The Committee is concerned that significant
taxpayer funds have been spent on this program only to have the
FAA warehouse important weather monitoring stations for class C
airports nationwide. The Committee directs the FAA
Administrator to submit a report by March 15, 2007, to the
Committee detailing the number of SAWS systems purchased and
deployed, improvements in flight safety at deployed airports,
safety impacts at class C airports yet to receive SAWS systems,
accounting of current class C airports, and the FAA's plan to
proceed with the original intent of SAWS deployment at all
class C airports.
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure.--The purpose of the
FTI program is to replace seven existing FAA-owned and -leased
telecommunications networks with a single new network that
would cost less to operate. FTI is an important program because
it is expected to reduce FAA's growing operations costs and
provide the backbone for several initiatives associated with
the next generation air traffic management system. The
Committee is concerned about delays to this program and
diminishing benefits.
Specifically, the Committee was greatly dismayed to learn
from the DOT Inspector General that the FAA failed to realize
roughly $33,000,000 in anticipated operating savings from the
FTI program in fiscal year 2005 due to the agency's inability
to disconnect legacy circuits in a safe and timely manner. The
Inspector General also reported the FAA was at further risk of
sacrificing over $100,000,000 in planned operating savings in
the current fiscal year because of program delays. The failure
of the agency to capture these planned savings is unacceptable.
Among other problems, these failures have undermined the
Administrator's ability to adequately hire and train critically
needed safety personnel, including safety inspector positions
which the Committee funded in 2006 with resources provided in
excess of the agency's budget request.
In April 2006, the Inspector General reported that FTI is a
high risk effort and recommended that FAA take a number of
actions. These include developing a realistic master schedule
and effective transition plan by coordinating with all parties
involved with the FTI transition, and validating cost estimates
and benefits.
FAA is taking overdue but positive steps by including its
regions, the current service provider, and the FTI contractor
to improve the overall transition to FTI. While FAA has made
some progress in improving FTI service deliveries, a
significant number of FTI services that were accepted by FAA
have not been cutover, thus requiring considerable rework and
causing an increased backlog.
FAA also engaged MITRE to independently validate the FTI
schedule. Based on MITRE's report, it appears that FTI will not
be completed as planned in December 2007, but is more likely to
be completed later in 2008. This will result in additional
unplanned costs and a further reduction in projected cost
savings from this program.
The Committee is aware that FAA will be reviewing the FTI
cost and schedule baselines in August. After that review, the
Committee expects the FAA to provide it with a clear
understanding of the work required to complete FTI, a realistic
estimate of when FTI will be completed, how potential risks to
ATC operations will be minimized, and when the Agency will
begin to realize benefits from this multi-billion dollar
investment. The Committee cautions FAA that future funding for
this program is dependent on providing this information to this
Committee in a timely manner.
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $136,620,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 130,000,000
House allowance......................................... 134,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 135,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D]
appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well
as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs are designed to
meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to
promote flight safety through improvements in facilities,
equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to ensure that
the system will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of
aircraft traffic.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $135,500,000 for the FAA's
research, engineering, and development activities. The
recommended level of funding is $5,500,000 more than budget
request and $1,120,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2007 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
2006 enacted 2007 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Fire Research and Safety.................................... $6,182,000 $6,638,000 $6,638,000
Propulsion and Fuel System.................................. 5,741,000 5,048,000 6,048,000
Advance Material/Structural Safety.......................... 5,881,000 2,843,000 4,843,000
Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety................... 3,407,000 3,848,000 3,848,000
Aging Aircraft.............................................. 19,807,000 18,621,000 18,621,000
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research........... 3,306,000 1,512,000 1,512,000
Flightdeck/Maintanence/System Integration Human Factors..... 8,099,000 7,999,000 7,999,000
Aviation Safety Risk Analysis............................... 4,883,000 5,292,000 5,292,000
Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors...... 9,558,000 9,654,000 9,654,000
Aeromedical Research........................................ 8,800,000 6,962,000 8,462,000
Weather Program--Safety..................................... 20,376,000 19,545,000 19,545,000
Unmanned Aircraft System.................................... .............. 1,200,000 1,200,000
Improve Efficency:
Joint Program and Development Office........................ 17,919,000 18,100,000 18,100,000
Wake Turbulence............................................. 2,273,000 3,066,000 3,066,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts: Environmental and Energy.......... 15,840,000 16,008,000 16,008,000
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management..................... 1,189,000 1,234,000 1,234,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility...... 3,359,000 3,430,000 3,430,000
-----------------------------------------------
RE&D Total................................................ 136,620,000 131,000,000 135,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY
Propulsion and Fuel Systems.--The Committee recommends
$5,048,000 for propulsion and fuel systems research to reduce
commercial fatalities. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to
complete the evaluation of the effects of molecular markers
designed for the purpose of detecting adulteration or dilution
of jet fuel for use in aviation engines.
Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.--The Committee
recommends $4,843,000 for advanced materials/structural safety
research. The recommendation is an increase of $2,000,000 from
the budget estimate and an decrease of $1,038,000 from the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee recommends
$500,000 to support and improve ongoing metallic and composite
structures research at the National Institute for Aviation
Research.
Aeromedical Research.--The Committee recommends $8,462,000
for aeromedical research, an increase of $1,500,000 above the
budget estimate. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to
continue studies related to cabin air quality to be conducted
by the center of excellence for cabin environment research.
Flight Attendant Fatigue.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the issue of flight attendant fatigue, and
whether current regulations provide adequate rest time for
flight attendants. Pursuant to the Committee's request in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the FAA submitted a
report in July 2006 on the impact of the minimum rest
requirements of FAR 121.467 and FAR 135.273. The study was
limited in nature; however, the report stated that flight
attendants are ``experiencing fatigue and tiredness and as
such, (fatigue) is a salient issue warranting further
evaluation.'' In order to gain a fuller understanding of the
impact of fatigue on flight attendants, the Committee directs
FAA to utilize $500,000 of its appropriation for CAMI to carry
out its recommendations for further study of this problem. The
Committee directs CAMI to submit a report to the Congress not
later than December 31, 2008, and expects the report to include
analysis in the six areas that CAMI identified in its report of
July 2006: a survey of field operations, a focused study of
incident reports, field research on the effects of fatigue, a
validation of models for assessing flight attendant fatigue,
international policies and practices, and the potential
benefits of training.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, 2006........................................ $3,514,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,750,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,700,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,520,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$3,520,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year
2007, which is $770,000,000 more than the budget estimate and
$5,500,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation is sufficient to continue the
important tasks of enhancing airport and airway safety,
ensuring that airport standards continue to be met, maintaining
existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity.
The Committee recommends several changes to the Grants-in-
Aid for Airports programs by including language that allows
funds appropriated to the Small Community Air Service
Development Program [SCASDP] to be used for expenses associated
with administering the program. This language further exempts
SCASDP from the obligation cap for administration and transfers
the amount appropriated to the account available to administer
the program. This language would also exempt the Small
Community Air Service Development Program's obligation of funds
for administrative purposes from the Trust Fund obligation cap
for administrative expenses.
In addition, these changes solve an inadvertent problem
that was created in prior year appropriations. Because there is
a prohibition on transfers, unless explicitly exempted, the
funds for the SCASDP program cannot be transferred to the
account where the program is currently administered. This
language would allow the money to be transferred and align
program funding with managed responsibility. In prior years,
the SCASDP program has not been given the authority to use
appropriated funds for administering the program. This language
gives authority for funds appropriated to be used for
administering the program.
Airport Discretionary Grants.--Of the funds covered by the
obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA
to provide not less than the following funding levels, out of
available resources, for the following projects in the
corresponding amounts. The Committee agrees that State
apportionment funds may be construed as discretionary funds for
the purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum
extent possible, the administrator should work to ensure that
airport sponsors for these projects first use available
entitlement funds to finance the projects. However, the FAA
should not require sponsors to apply carryover entitlement to
discretionary projects funded in the coming year, but only
those entitlements applicable to the fiscal year 2007
obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that the
specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or
prejudice the application of a specific airport or geographic
region to receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year
letters of intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport Name Project Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL Birmingham Extension of runway 6/ $3,500,000
International 24.
AL Franklin Field Environmental 4,000,000
Airport assessment, land
acquisition, design
and construction,
relocation and
extension of the
existing runway and
renovation of airport
facility.
DE Delaware Airpark Construct a new 3,300,000
(33N) runway, taxiway and
apron system.
IL Waukegan Regional Environmental Study 1,000,000
and land acquisition
for runway extension.
KY Louisville Runway widening and 3,200,000
International- various improve-
Standiford Field ments.
KY Barkley Regional To construct a new 1,500,000
terminal facility.
LA Louis Armstrong New Various Improvements.. 2,200,000
Orleans
International
MA Nantucket Memorial Move air traffic 2,000,000
control tower to
accommodate terminal
improvements.
MI Bishop International Cargo Apron expansion. 3,000,000
MI Capital City Extend primary runway. 4,000,000
MO Mexico Memorial New terminal and 200,000
Airport various improvements.
MO Max B. Swisher Various improvements.. 8,750,000
Airport
MO Rosecrans Memorial Rotary Snow Broom..... 350,000
Airport
MO Farmington Regional Partial parallel 800,000
Airport taxiway construction.
MS Golden Triangle Runway extension and 2,000,000
Regional Airport environmental
assessment.
MS Greenwood-Leflore Control tower 2,000,000
Airport construction and
various improvements.
MS Jackson International Essential airfield 4,000,000
Airport improvements.
MS Trent Lott Runway extension...... 2,000,000
International
Airport
MS Tunica Municipal Runway and Parallel 2,000,000
Airport Taxiway Extension.
MT Billings Logan Taxiway A Pavement 2,200,000
International Rehabilitation and
Airport Drainage Upgrade.
MT Bert Mooney Airport Approach Lighting and 1,500,000
Airport environmental
assessment.
MT Great Falls Expand and improve 1,500,000
International taxiway apron system
Airport and other
improvements.
NC Rowan County Airport Existing runway 1,000,000
protection zone land
acquisition and
airfield improvements.
NC Statesville Regional Runway extension, 1,000,000
Airport runway strengthening,
and other
improvements.
ND Devils Lake Municipal- Reconstruct runway 13/ 1,500,000
Knoke Field 31.
ND Grand Forks Construct a new runway 1,000,000
International
NE Western Nebraska Various improvements.. 1,000,000
Regional/William B.
Heilig Field
NM Alexander Municipal Construct new cross 1,500,000
wind runway.
NM Albuquerque Aircraft parking ramp. 1,000,000
International
Sunport
NM Las Cruces Runway Improvements... 4,000,000
International
NY Niagara Falls New Terminal Apron.... 1,000,000
International
OR McNary Field Construct new runway.. 1,500,000
OR Roberts Field-Redmond Renovation of airport 2,000,000
Municipal terminal.
PA Erie Intl Runway expansion...... 3,000,000
TN Nashville Runway 13/31 5,000,000
International improvements.
TX San Marcos Municipal Various Improvements.. 4,500,000
WI La Crosse Municipal Phase 3 construction 5,000,000
of parallel taxiway
to primary runway and
reconstruction of
Taxiways A and E and
the south General
Aviation apron.
WI Sheboygan County Extend primary runway. 2,000,000
Memorial
WI Southern Wisconsin Construct parallel 1,000,000
Regional taxiway to Runway 36;
construct southwest T-
Hangar apron;
reconstruct T-Hangar
apron and acquire
land in the primary
runway approach.
WV West Virginia Various Improvements.. 8,000,000
statewide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama City-Bay County International Airport, Florida.--The
Committee encourages the FAA to give priority consideration to
the application for a letter of intent that the Panama City-Bay
County International Airport Authority and Industrial District
submitted for construction of a new airport. The FAA has noted
that the runways at the current airport do not meet Federal
safety and design standards. The FAA's draft environmental
impact statement further noted that the ``No Action''
alternative is ``not reasonable, feasible, practicable or
prudent.'' The Committee has been informed that substantial
safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the completion of
this project. The Committee also understands this project has
several unique characteristics, including having a private
entity donate the new site and reducing conflict with military
aircraft. In addition, the Committee understands that more than
two-thirds of this project will be funded from non-Federal
sources. The Committee supports the application as submitted
and believes this is a unique opportunity to leverage Federal
funds.
Runway Incursion Prevention Systems and Devices.--The bill
includes a provision that allows funds for grants-in-aid to
airports to be used by airports to procure and install runway
incursion prevention systems and devises.
Airport Technology.--The budget estimate includes
$18,870,000 for airport technology research. The Committee
recommendation is $1,000,000 more than the budget request, and
funds recommended in addition to the estimate are for the
airfield pavements research program. The program is designed to
develop safer, more cost-effective, and durable asphalt and
concrete airfield pavements.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
Rescission, 2006........................................ -$1,032,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -1,582,000
House allowance......................................... -25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -765,490,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a rescission of contract
authorization of $765,490,000 of contract authority from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Section 48112 of title 49,
United States Code, stipulates that additional contract
authorization for the grants-in-aid program is automatically
made available in an amount equal to the difference between the
appropriated level for the facilities and equipment program and
the authorized amount for the same fiscal year.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more
than 395 in fiscal year 2007.
Section 111 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C.
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 112 allows funds received to reimburse FAA for
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities
to be credited to the Operations account.
Section 113 extends the terms and conditions of the
aviation insurance program, commonly known as ``war risk
insurance,'' and the limitation on air carrier liability for
third party claims arising out of acts of terrorism to August
31, 2007 and includes an option for the Secretary to futher
extend the program until December 31, 2007.
Section 114 extends the retirement age for pilots to age
65.
Section 115 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide
the Federal Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings,
maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does
not apply to negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors
concerning ``below market'' rates for such services or to grant
assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land
without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Federal Highway Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration
is, in partnership with State and local governments, to foster
the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and
intermodal system nationwide including access to and within
national forests, national parks, indian lands and other public
lands.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $39,865,464,863 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2007.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $360,991,620
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 372,504,000
House allowance......................................... 372,504,000
Committee recommendation................................ 378,504,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries
and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program
management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance
to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support
services in field offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$378,504,000 for administrative expenses of the agency.
This limitation is $6,000,000 more than the budget request
and $17,512,380 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
The Committee recommends the additional funding be used to
continue to improve oversight and stewardship of the Federal-
aid highway funds to ensure that every Federal dollar is well
spent and that program operations and processes are efficient
and streamlined. The funds should be applied to the Financial
Integrity Review and Evaluation program, improvements to FHWA's
Fiscal Information Management System, as well as permanent
change of station moves.
LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Limitation, 2006........................................ $425,502,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 429,800,000
House allowance......................................... 429,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 429,800,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research. Funding for
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is also included
within this limitation even though BTS is organizationally
placed within the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration [RITA]. Additional information regarding BTS is
included in the RITA section of this report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations for
transportation research of $429,800,000. This limitation is
consistent with the Senate-passed authorization level and is
$4,298,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, 2006........................................ $35,672,020,464
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 39,086,464,683
House allowance......................................... 39,086,464,683
Committee recommendation................................ 39,086,464,683
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support
to States and localities for development, construction, and
repair of highways and bridges through grants. The program is
financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are
distributed through apportionments and allocations to States.
Title 23 of the United States Code and other supporting
legislation provide authority for the various activities of the
FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program
levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in
appropriations acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2007 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $39,086,464,683, which is
$3,414,444,220 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
Within the funds available for ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities, funds are to be available for the
following projects and activities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority Intermodal $1,000,000
Relocation Opportunity Study, OH.......................
Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority Public Dock,
Detroit, MI............................................
Public Dock & Terminal Project, MI...................... 3,000,000
Dorena-Hickman Ferry Boat Service, Mississippi County, 1,000,000
Missouri...............................................
Haverstraw Ferry Terminal , NY.......................... 500,000
Homer-Halibut Cove-Jakolof Bay-Seldovia Ferry, AK....... 3,500,000
Kitsap Transit, Rich-Passage Wake Impact Study, WA...... 2,200,000
Manns Harbor Shipyard, NC............................... 2,000,000
Mississippi River Ferry Boat Expansion, Davenport, Iowa. 1,000,000
Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Redevelopment, WA.......... 675,000
Oak Bluffs Terminal reconstruction, Martha's Vineyard, 1,500,000
MA.....................................................
Oklahoma River Ferry Boat Transportation, Oklahoma...... 1,000,000
Puget Sound Regional Council, Passenger-Only Ferry 125,000
Study, WA..............................................
Swan's Island Ferry Facilities Improvement Project, ME.. 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Within the funds available for transportation and community
and system preservation program, funds are to be distributed to
the following projects and activities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
87th Street Parkway Improvement, Lenexa, KS............. $1,500,000
Access Road to Beckley Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1,400,000
WV.....................................................
Antelope Valley Project Transportation Improvements, NE. 750,000
Aurora Bike Trail, IL................................... 300,000
Cal-Sag Greenway Bike Trail, IL......................... 250,000
City of Reading Streetscape Improvements, Pennsylvania.. 1,000,000
City of Warwick, RI; for a feasibility study on Route 37 250,000
extension, RI..........................................
Clayton Pedestrian Grade Seperation, Johnston County, NC 575,000
Des Moines Creek Trail Access Project, Des Moines, WA... 500,000
ast Aztec Arterial Route, NM............................ 1,000,000
Euclid Lakefront Mixed Use Harbor Town Marina Project, 750,000
OH.....................................................
Flats East Bank Project, OH............................. 1,050,000
General Dacey Trail--Phase 2, IL........................ 200,000
Grand Illinois Trail, Village of Carbon Cliff, IL....... 200,000
Great River Trail near Savanna, IL...................... 200,000
Harrisburg to Eldorado Bike Trail, IL................... 250,000
Highway 49 Roadway Lighting, Hattiesburg................ 750,000
Hofstra University Safe and Sustainable Campus Plan, NY. 1,000,000
Intersection Rehabilitation and Improvements, US24 and 1,500,000
Marlatt Avenue, Manhattan, KS..........................
Kaycee Main Street Project, Wyoming..................... 500,000
Longleaf Trace Trail, MS................................ 250,000
Morgantown access road--Airport to I-68, WV............. 2,300,000
Natchez Historical Trail, MS............................ 500,000
Olympic Discovery Trail/Elwha River Pedestrian Bridge, 500,000
Clallam County, WA.....................................
Pookela Road Improvements, HI........................... 1,000,000
Separated Grade Crossing for Torrington, Wyoming........ 800,000
Shiloh Road Corridor--West Billings, MT................. 500,000
SIU--Edwardsville Morris Bike Trail, IL................. 200,000
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Connector 1,000,000
Road, South Dakota.....................................
Springfield Park District's Interurban Bicycle and 200,000
Pedestrian Trail, IL...................................
State Route 72 Widening, Grading, Paving, and General 500,000
Safety Improvements, OH................................
Statesmen Boulevard and Trail, Delta State University, 500,000
MS.....................................................
Town of North Kingstown, RI; for Post Road Corridor Plan 500,000
Town of Tiverton, RI; Stone Bridge Improvements......... 500,000
U.S. 113 (Worcester Highway), Maryland.................. 750,000
University of Southern Maine, University Commons Bedford 1,000,000
Street Safety Improvements, ME.........................
Urbana to Danville Trail, IL............................ 200,000
Utah County Mobility Studies, UT........................ 500,000
Uptown St. Joseph Revitalization Project, MO............ 1,000,000
Vermont Downtown Streetscape & Sidewalk Improvements in 2,000,000
Springfield, Derby Line, Bristol, Stamford, Franklin
[VT]...................................................
Western Kentucky University--Community Bikeway in 1,000,000
Bowling Green, Kentucky................................
William H. Darr Agricultural Center Renovation of 1,000,000
Facilities and Equipment, MO...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL LANDS
Within the funds for the Federal lands program, funds are
to be available for the following projects and activities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
116th Street NE Interchange Improvement Project, Tulalip $1,000,000
Tribes, WA.............................................
Alaska Trail Initiative, AK............................. 2,000,000
Arcadia Boat Ramp Project, Squaxin Island Tribe, WA..... 1,000,000
Beartooth Highway Reconstruction, WY.................... 1,000,000
BIA Route 12 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, SD............. 2,000,000
BIA Route 6 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, South Dakota.... 2,000,000
Big Timber-McLeod Street Renovation Project, MT......... 2,000,000
Bozeman-Durston Avenue/Peach Street and North 7th Avenue 2,000,000
Intersection, MT.......................................
City of Red Lodge West Fork Road & Ski Run Road, MT..... 1,000,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho................. 1,000,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho................. 3,000,000
Colorado State Highway 13 from Craig to Wyoming state 1,000,000
line, Colorado.........................................
Colorado State Highway 150--from US 160, north to Great 1,000,000
Sand Dunes National Park, Colorado.....................
Consumer Road to Horizon Mine, Carbon County, Utah...... 1,250,000
Croix Street Reconstruction: Completion of Phase I , 350,000
Negaunee, MI...........................................
Grand Teton Pathways Project, Wyoming................... 1,000,000
Grenada Access Road, MS................................. 1,000,000
Hawaii Statewide Federal Lands Improvements, HI......... 800,000
Homochitto National Forest Roads, Lincoln County, MS.... 1,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ............................ 1,000,000
Kalispell Westside/Stillwater Bypass Project, MT........ 4,200,000
Pikes Peak Highway [CO]................................. 1,000,000
Pondera County Rural Roads, MT.......................... 2,460,000
Reconstruct Nine Mile Canyon Road, Duchesne County, Utah 500,000
Road 27 Paving, NE...................................... 1,000,000
Sardis Lake Drive, MS................................... 500,000
Shotgun Cove Road, AK................................... 1,000,000
Skokomish Tribe Access Road and US-101 Realignment 1,000,000
Project, WA............................................
SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway--Las Vegas to Pahrump, NV... 5,000,000
Three Affiliated Tribes, Wells Road, North Dakota....... 1,000,000
US 491 in Montezuma County [CO]......................... 500,000
Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Roads in Cherry 1,000,000
County, Nebraska.......................................
Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico............ 1,400,000
Vermont Federal Lands Projects [VT]..................... 640,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE MAINTANENCE DISCRETIONARY
Within the funds for the interstate maintenance
discretionary program, funds are to be available for the
following projects and activities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Belgrade Interchange, MT........................... $1,000,000
I-10 Reconstruction/Las Cruces to New Mexico-Texas State 1,500,000
Line, NM...............................................
I-12 at LA 1088 New Interchange, Louisiana.............. 750,000
I-15 Auxiliary Lanes, Kaysville to 31st Street in Ogden, 1,000,000
Utah...................................................
I-15 Bluff Interchange, St. George, Utah................ 750,000
I-225 at Colfax/US 40 & 17th Ave [CO]................... 1,000,000
I-25 and State Highway 16 Interchange at Fort Carson 2,000,000
(Gate 20), CO..........................................
I-376 Redesignation Improvement Plan, Pennsylvania...... 2,000,000
I-5/I-205 Salmon Creek Interchange Project, Clark 2,000,000
County, WA.............................................
I-70 Viaduct Realignment, Topeka, KS.................... 500,000
I-73, Construction of I-73 from Myrtle Beach, SC to I- 500,000
95, ending at the North Carolina state line, SC........
I-75 at South Dixie Drive/Central Avenue Interchange, OH 2,000,000
I-81 Widening, PA....................................... 625,000
I-84, US-93 Interchange, Stage 2--Idaho................. 500,000
I-85 New Interchange in Troup County, GA................ 1,000,000
I-95 in Cumberland, Harnett, and Johnston Counties, NC.. 750,000
I-95/U.S. Hwy 301 Interchange, SC....................... 500,000
Improvements to Rte 266 and Interchange with I-44, MO... 2,500,000
Interstate 20/59 Industrial Park Interchange, MS........ 3,150,000
Interstate 29 Utility Relocation, Sioux City, Iowa...... 500,000
Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 2,000,000
1, AR..................................................
Interstate 80 Concrete Rehabilitation, Wyoming.......... 750,000
Interstate 84 Burnt River Freight Improvement, OR....... 1,000,000
Interstate 94 from Highway 336 to Barnesville, MN....... 750,000
Interstate 94/43/794, Marquette Interchange, WI......... 2,375,000
Lighting at Exit 400 Off Interstate 55, Lincoln County, 350,000
MS.....................................................
Pacific Street Bridge over I-680, NE.................... 750,000
Port Road Expansion and Improvements, Houston, Texas.... 500,000
Queen's Medical center H-1 Access Ramp, HI.............. 4,000,000
Reconstruction of Two Interchanges on I-235, Wichita, KS 500,000
Rhode Island Department of Transportation; I-95 and I- 1,000,000
195 Lighting Project, RI...............................
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV................ 3,000,000
SR-704/I-5 Cross Base Highway, Pierce County, WA........ 1,000,000
Turnpike Improvements Project, DE....................... 2,000,000
US 278 Corridor Construction, South Carolina............ 500,000
Widening of I-55 from Church Rd. to TN State Line, 5,000,000
Mississippi............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS
The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's
assistance and oversight.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the highway,
highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year
2009, makes Federal-aid highways funds available in the
following major categories:
National Highway System [NHS].--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the
NHS, which was subsequently established as a 161,000 mile road
system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
This system serves major population centers, intermodal
transportation facilities, international border crossings, and
major destinations. The NHS program provides funding for this
system consisting of roads that are of primary Federal
interest. The NHS consists of the current Interstate, other
rural principal arterials, urban freeways and connecting urban
principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department's
designated Strategic Highway Network, and roads connecting the
NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS
program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale
adjustment, with an availability period of 4-years.
Interstate Maintenance [IM].--The 46,876 mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction that
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for
IM funds. The Federal share for the IM program is 90 percent,
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are
available for 4 years.
Surface Transportation Program [STP].--STP is a flexible
program that may be used by States and localities for projects
on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road,
transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus
terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside
for transportation enhancements and State sub-allocations are
provided. The Federal share for STP is generally 80 percent,
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with a 4-year
availability period.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.--The bridge program
enables States to improve the condition of their bridges
through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive
maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges,
including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor
collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have a 4-year
period of availability with a Federal share for all projects,
except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject
to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the
Interstate System, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to
the sliding scale adjustment. There is a set-aside of
$100,000,000 from the fiscal year 2006-2009 funding for
specific projects listed in SAFETEA-LU.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
[CMAQ].--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation
projects and programs to help meet and maintain national
ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. A minimum one-half percent of the
apportionment is guaranteed to each State.
Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].--The new highway
infrastructure safety program (previously funded by a set-aside
from STP), was established as a core program beginning in 2006.
The program, which features strategic safety planning and
performance, devotes additional resources and supports
innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities and
injuries on all public roads.
Federal Lands Highways.--This category funds improvements
for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian
reservation roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway
program provides for transportation planning, research,
engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and
transit facilities that provide access to or within public
lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.
The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Equity Bonus.--The equity bonus (replaces TEA21's minimum
guarantee) provides additional funds to States to ensure that
each State's total funding from apportioned programs and for
High Priority Projects meets certain equity considerations.
Each State is guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share
of contributions to the highway account of the Highway Trust
Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar
amount of apportionments under TEA21. Certain States will
maintain the share of total apportionments they each received
during TEA21. An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring
that there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of
the equity bonus.
Emergency Relief [ER].-- Section 125 of title 23, United
States Code, authorizes $100,000,000 annually for the ER
program. This program provides funds for the repair or
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and bridges and
federally owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious
damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic
failures. The ER program supplements the commitment of
resources by States, their political subdivisions, or Federal
agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting
from extraordinary conditions.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--SAFETEA-LU
reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and
ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 be set aside for marine
highway systems that are part of the National Highway System
for use by the States of Alaska, New Jersey, and Washington.
National Scenic Byways.--This program provides funding for
roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as
All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These
roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural,
recreational, and archaeological qualities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation
[TCSP].--SAFETEA-LU continues the TCSP program to provide
grants to States and local governments for planning,
developing, and implementing strategies to integrate
transportation and community and system preservation plans and
practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency
of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of
transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly
future investments in public infrastructure; and provide
efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
[TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in
the development of major infrastructure facilities through
greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building
on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees
in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would
be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA
program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby
lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project
revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project
operations.
Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is authorized for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, is available until expended,
and is distributed among the 13 eligible States based on the
latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the
Appalachian Regional Commission.
High Priority Projects.--Funds are provided for specific
projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. Over 5,000 projects are
identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 5
years of SAFETEA-LU.
Projects of National and Regional Significance.--This
program provides funding for specific projects of national or
regional importance. All the funds authorized for this program
from the Highway Trust Fund are designated for projects listed
in SAFETEA-LU.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $36,032,343,903
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 39,086,464,683
House allowance......................................... 39,086,464,683
Committee recommendation................................ 39,086,464,683
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $39,086,464,683. The recommended level is equal to the
budget request and is necessary to pay outstanding obligations
from various highway accounts pursuant to prior appropriations
acts.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $1,500,983,000 of the unobligated
balances of funds apportioned to the States under chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, excluding safety programs and
funds set aside within the State for population areas. The
Committee directs the FHWA to administer the rescission by
allowing each State the maximum flexibility in making
adjustments among the apportioned highway programs.
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $19,800,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System
[ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240). The
ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the
Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise
the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are
intended to replace some of the most deficient and dangerous
segments of rural roadway in America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for corridor H in West
Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS].
The recommended amount is $200,000 more than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House Allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $20,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Funding for the Delta Regional Transportation Development
Program is authorized under section 1308 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59). The Delta Regional
Transportation Development Program provides funds to support
and encourage multi-state transportation planning and corridor
development, provide for transportation project development,
facilitate transportation decisionmaking and support
transportation construction in the eight States comprising the
Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Delta Regional
Transportation Development Program. The Committee directs
funding be allocated to the following projects that are listed
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pemiscot County Port Authority Intermodal $3,900,000
Infrastructure, Missouri...............................
Highway 6 from Batesville to Clarksdale, Mississippi.... 5,000,000
Park Hills and Mineral Area College Outer Road, Missouri 1,100,000
Industrial Park By-Pass, MO............................. 2,787,000
Route Y Reconstruction Project, MO...................... 1,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the
Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 includes language that makes certain projects
and activities eligible to receive fiscal year 2007 grants.
Section 123. The statement of managers accompanying the
fiscal year 2005 appropriations act includes $2,500,000 from
Bridge Discretionary Program funds for the Joachim Avenue
Bridge replacement, Missouri (page 1394 of House Report 108-
792). This provision would make the funds available for the New
South Herculaneum Bridge, Herculaneum, Missouri.
Section 124 recommends that funds made available under this
section be designated for the following projects:
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-225 at Colfax Avenue (US 40) and 17th Avenue in $2,000,000
Aurora, Colorado.......................................
I-70 Stapleton Interchange [CO]......................... 1,000,000
13th Street/Interstate 22 Ramp Repair and Safety, 1,000,000
Pennsylvania...........................................
21st Century Parks Inc. in Louisville, KY............... 5,400,000
A-B Street Corridor Connector, Auburn, WA............... 1,800,000
Akutan Road construction, AK............................ 1,000,000
Allen County SR-309 Safety Improvements and Related 1,000,000
Construction, OH.......................................
American Parkway Project, PA............................ 500,000
American St./Girard Ave. Gateway, PA.................... 500,000
Aroostook County North-South Highways, ME............... 1,500,000
Ashburton Avenue Reconstruction in Yonkers, NY.......... 2,000,000
Battleship New Jersey Access Road (Clinton Street) 750,000
Repaving, New Jersey...................................
Beltline Road Corridor Study, OR........................ 500,000
Bland Street Improvements, MO........................... 300,000
Bluffton Parkway Extensions, SC......................... 1,000,000
Bob Anthony Parkway, Barnett Reservoir, MS.............. 750,000
Booneville Bypass, MS................................... 1,000,000
Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Program, Louisiana..... 2,000,000
Bridge Over Brandywine Creek, Pennsylvania.............. 1,250,000
Bristol Street Widening, Santa Ana, CA.................. 600,000
Burlington Avenue Grade Separated Interchange at US 24, 2,000,000
Logansport, Cass County, IN............................
Caraway Bridge Overpass, Arkansas....................... 2,000,000
Carson City Freeway-Phase 2, NV......................... 3,000,000
CEMAR Urban Trail Project, Iowa......................... 500,000
Center City Streetscape Improvement, Missouri........... 1,000,000
Chambers County Bridge Replacement, Alabama............. 200,000
Chittenden County, VT Downtown Revitalization 2,400,000
Improvements in Essex Junction and Milton [VT].........
City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO... 315,800
City of Herculaneum-Joachim Avenue Bridge Replacement- 2,557,800
the new ``South Bridge'', Missouri.....................
City of Pittsburgh Lower Hill Plaza, Pennsylvania....... 1,000,000
City of Scranton East Elm Street Project, Pennsylvania.. 500,000
Clifton Corridor Transit Management Association [CCTMA]. 1,000,000
Coalfields Expressway, WV............................... 5,000,000
Cold Storage Spur Line, Iowa............................ 1,500,000
Coldwater River Bridge and Approaches, DeSoto County, MS 1,250,000
Colfax Narrows Project, NV.............................. 1,000,000
College of Southern Idaho Student Safety Initiative, ID. 800,000
Connecticut Center for Science and Exploration and 2,000,000
Capital City Economic Development Authority
Construction of Integrated Parking Facilities, CT......
Construction and Improvements to County Road One (RS- 1,000,000
209) south of I-70 to K-32, Leavenworth County, Kansas.
Construction of I-45 over SH96, Galveston County, Texas. 1,500,000
Construction of Improvements to 144th Street from ``Q'' 1,000,000
Street to Madison Street, NE...........................
Coon Rapids Iowa Area Great Places Trail, IA............ 500,000
County Highway 74/Laraway Road Corridor Improvements, 650,000
Illinois...............................................
Cumberland Avenue Improvements, Tennessee............... 1,000,000
Deer Valley Road Bridge Crossing, Surprise, AZ.......... 1,880,000
Delaware State Transportation & Public Safety Traffic 1,000,000
Information Exchange Pilot Project, DE.................
Denali Commission, AK................................... 4,000,000
Downtown Redevelopment Plan, MO......................... 500,000
Durant Main Street/SH 78 Improvements, Oklahoma......... 500,000
East Street Extension Junction City, Kansas............. 1,000,000
East Washington Avenue Reconstruction, WI............... 400,000
El Paso Inner Loop Highway, TX.......................... 4,000,000
Ellsworth Air Force Base Road Improvement, South Dakota. 4,750,000
Engineering, design and construction of a Port Access 1,000,000
Road connecting to I-26 in North Charleston, SC........
Extension of arterial roadway, Prineville, Oregon....... 1,000,000
Extension of Highway 57, Jackson County, MS............. 750,000
Falcon Raod Improvements--Phase II, Oklahoma............ 1,000,000
Forest Park South Neighborhood Streetscape Improvements, 500,000
Missouri...............................................
Fredericksburg Road/Medical Drive, San Antonio, TX...... 1,000,000
Friant Road Widening, Fresno County, CA................. 1,000,000
Gateway Plan 2030: Inner Loop Highway, El Paso, Texas... 750,000
Glencoe Railroad Congestion Mitigation Project in MN.... 1,000,000
Grand Avenue Underpass, Illinois........................ 2,000,000
Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement, Bay County, Florida.... 1,500,000
Grand Rapids Passenger Rail and Station Relocation, MI.. 2,000,000
Granite Falls Alternate Freight Route, Snohomish County, 2,000,000
WA.....................................................
Granite Street Reconstruction Project, NH............... 1,500,000
Grant City Downtown Revitalization, MO.................. 500,000
Grant County Economic Development Corridor, Indiana..... 1,000,000
Green Spring Interchange Area Management Plan, OR....... 300,000
Greenville Trail, MO.................................... 500,000
Haines Road Improvements, AK............................ 1,000,000
Hanford Reach National Monument Transportation 1,000,000
Infrastructure Improvements, WA........................
Harrisburg Southern Gateway Project, Pennsylvania....... 1,000,000
Heart of America Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, MO.......... 1,000,000
High Speed Maglev Deployment Program, PA................ 1,500,000
Highway 11, Picayune, MS................................ 1,250,000
Highway 19, Neshoba County, MS.......................... 2,500,000
Highway 412: Springdale Bypass, Arkansas................ 4,000,000
Highway 431 Expansion, Alabama.......................... 1,000,000
Highway 49/Highway 7 Connector Road, Greenwood, MS...... 1,250,000
Highway 65 North in Dallas County, Missouri............. 1,500,000
Highway 71: Louisiana State Line--DeQueen, Arkansas..... 2,000,000
Highway 79 Four Lane, Blount County, Alabama............ 2,000,000
Highway 965/Fairview Lane/Golfview Drive Intersection 870,000
Alignment Project, North Liberty, Iowa.................
Highway Improvement to Highway 54 Near Mexico, MO....... 539,400
Hudiburg Drive Beautification and Improvement, Oklahoma. 780,000
I-10 Widening in Western Maricopa County, Arizona....... 2,000,000
I-25 & SH 16 Interchange [CO]........................... 1,000,000
I-29/52nd Avenue South Interchange Reconstruction in 2,000,000
Fargo, North Dakota....................................
I-35/Tecumseh Road Transportation Traffic Study, Norman, 800,000
Oklahoma...............................................
I-5/Highway 99W Connector, OR........................... 1,000,000
I-5/North Macadam Freeway Ramp & Street Capacity 2,000,000
Improvements, OR.......................................
I-580 Meadow Mall Interchange, NV....................... 1,000,000
I-74/Northern Beltway, Eastern Expansion, Forsyth 1,000,000
County, NC.............................................
I-84, Exit 29 (Franklin Road) Local Systems Improvement, 1,000,000
ID.....................................................
Idaho Byways Corridor Planning Implementation, ID....... 1,000,000
Interchange Construction at US73 and 20th Street, 1,000,000
Leavenworth, KS........................................
Interchange Improvements at I-44 & Kansas Expressway, 1,000,000
Missouri...............................................
Interchange Improvements at U.S. 60 and National Avenue, 1,500,000
Greene County, MO......................................
Intermodal Infrastructure Enhancement Project, Port of 800,000
Pasco, WA..............................................
Interstate 20 South Frontage Road, Warren County, MS.... 1,500,000
Interstate 235 Reconstruction in Des Moines, Iowa-- 3,750,000
utility work...........................................
Iowa Highway 32, Southwest Areterial, Dubuque, Iowa..... 1,000,000
Jefferson Park Avenue Pedestrian Crossing, Virginia..... 3,500,000
K-7 Corridor Study from 183rd St to 119th Street in 500,000
Olathe, KS.............................................
Kalispell Bypass, MT.................................... 4,000,000
King Coal Highway, WV................................... 5,000,000
KY 70 Rehabilitation Project in Barren County, KY....... 400,000
Lake Harbour Road, Ridgeland, MS........................ 1,250,000
Las Vegas Beltway/Airport Connector Interchange, NV..... 1,000,000
Lawton Downtown Revitalization Project, Oklahoma........ 1,000,000
Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation Project, Port of Tacoma, 1,500,000
WA.....................................................
Lincoln South and West Beltway, NE...................... 1,000,000
Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, New Hampshire.... 5,000,000
Mahoning County US-224 and Related Connector Road Safety 1,500,000
Improvements, OH.......................................
Manchester East/West Connector Bridge [NH].............. 500,000
Marks Airport Improvements, MS.......................... 1,000,000
Marshall County Commission Double Bridges, Alabama...... 2,000,000
Marshall County Salt Dome, KY........................... 400,000
Martin Bluff Road, Mississippi.......................... 5,000,000
McIngvale Road Interchange/State Hwy 304, Mississippi... 5,000,000
MD 404 Upgrades, Maryland............................... 4,000,000
Merrimack River Footbridge, Manchester, NH.............. 250,000
Mingo Wildlife Refuge Recreational Trail & Habitat 800,000
Improvement, MO........................................
Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority Rehabilitation 2,000,000
Improvements, Minnesota................................
Mississippi Highway 27, MS.............................. 500,000
Mississippi Highway 44 Extension/Pearl River Bridge, MS. 2,000,000
Missouri 58 Highway and Route D Improvements, Cass 1,000,000
County, MO.............................................
MO 740 Stadium Extension to I-70, Missouri.............. 3,000,000
Morgan County, WV--Extension of Western Maryland Trail 1,000,000
through Paw Paw Bends..................................
Natchez Roads, MS....................................... 1,500,000
Nehemiah Gateway ``Ways to Work'' Loan Program, DE...... 259,080
New Orleans Regional Redevelopment Planning, LA......... 2,000,000
North Royal Street Improvements, TN..................... 1,000,000
North Second Street Corridor, Memphis, Tennessee........ 4,000,000
Northside Drive, Clinton, MS............................ 3,750,000
Oelwein Community Revitalization Initiative, Oelwein, 1,000,000
Iowa...................................................
Old Whitfield Road, Pearl, MS........................... 2,000,000
Outer Loop, Montgomery, Alabama......................... 3,000,000
Paducah Waterfront Development Project in Paducah, 4,600,000
Kentucky...............................................
Patriot Parkway (Southern Bypass), Madison County, 4,700,000
Alabama................................................
Pecue Lane Interchange and Realignment, Louisiana....... 250,000
Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements, Oklahoma..... 500,000
Pinnacle Aeropark Access Project, Wayne County, MI...... 2,000,000
Planning Study for Limited Access Highway at Fort 400,000
Campbell, KY...........................................
Port Huron NAFTA Corridor Congestion Mitigation Project, 1,000,000
MI.....................................................
Port of Anacortes Infrastructure Improvements, 1,150,000
Anacortes, WA..........................................
Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility 1,000,000
Development, AK........................................
Port of Anchorage road improvements, AK................. 1,000,000
Ports-to-Plains Corridor [CO]........................... 500,000
Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor, TX...................... 1,000,000
Post Street Centennial Trail and Utility Bridge, 2,000,000
Spokane, WA............................................
Pyramid Highway Corridor Early Action Items, NV......... 1,000,000
Rails Corridor Alliance, MS............................. 750,000
Reconstruction of US-50 in Reno County, KS.............. 1,000,000
Reconstruction of US-50, Gray County, KS................ 2,000,000
Relief Route, City of Aztec, New Mexico................. 1,000,000
Resurfacing of Ocean, Post, and Shore Roads, RI......... 1,000,000
Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Post Road 2,000,000
Improvements [RI]......................................
Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Route 3 1,000,000
Improvements, RI.......................................
Rhode Island Department of Transportation; Warwick 1,000,000
Intermodal Station Sky Bridge and Moving Skywalk
Project, RI............................................
Rickenbacker Global Logistics Transportation 1,000,000
Improvements, OH.......................................
River Tech Boulevard Road Construction, Illinois........ 1,000,000
Road Improvements and Upgrades to Boyd Boulevard, 750,000
LaPorte, IN............................................
Route 17 Essex Street Bridge (Bergen County, NJ)........ 2,000,000
Route 29 Boulevard Conversion Project in Trenton, NJ.... 2,000,000
Route 30 Cooper River Drainage Improvements (Camden 3,000,000
County, NJ)............................................
Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail, Renton, WA............... 1,200,000
SD 11 and SD 42 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota............ 5,000,000
Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County NC........ 1,000,000
SH 44/104th Ave Improvements [CO]....................... 800,000
South Corridor (North Lake Road) of the North Valley 750,000
Connector Study, Utah..................................
South Lake Union Circulation System, Seattle, WA........ 1,150,000
SR 40 from west of CR 61 to I-95, Camden Co., GA........ 1,000,000
SR 85 Improvements, Crestview, Florida.................. 1,000,000
SR1 Beach Area Improvements--Rehoboth Entrance 2,000,000
Improvements, DE.......................................
SR-1 Grade Separated Intersection, DE................... 2,000,000
SR-57 Safety Improvements, Lorain County, OH............ 1,000,000
Stafford County Courthouse Improvement Project, Virginia 711,000
State Road 133 from Valdosta to Moultrie to Albany, 1,000,000
Georgia................................................
Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, NY...... 1,400,000
Ste. Genevieve Main Street/Riverfront Improvement 1,000,000
Project, MO............................................
Stillwater Avenue Reconstruction Project, Bangor, ME.... 100,000
Street Repair, Greenville, MS........................... 1,250,000
Tantalus Drive Stabilization, HI........................ 4,000,000
Temple Park and Temple Square, MO....................... 1,000,000
Tenth Street Connector, Greeneville, NC................. 1,000,000
TH 14 from Waseca to Owatonna, MN....................... 2,000,000
TH 610 Corridor from TH 169 in Brooklyn Park to I-94 in 1,000,000
Maple Grove, MN........................................
The Chinatown Plaza and Vicinity Revitalization, 120,000
Pennsylvania...........................................
Thomaston--Route 1 Highway Reconstruction Project, ME... 2,000,000
Toby Tubby Parkway, MS.................................. 500,000
Town of Branford Relocation of State Route 794 and 3,000,000
Alterations of Approaches of State Route 794 and State
Route 146 to Route 1, Connecticut......................
Town of Mansfield Construction of Parking Garage in 2,000,000
Storrs Town Center, Connecticut........................
Town of West Haven Development of a Feasibility Study of 250,000
the Extension of Fresh Meadow Road to Route 34,
Connecticut............................................
Transportation Infrastructure Improvements and Expansion 400,000
for Green River, Wyoming...............................
U.S. 69 and Chuckwa Drive Ramps, Oklahoma............... 475,118
U.S. 82--Downtown Connector Road, Greenwood, MS......... 1,500,000
University of Memphis Southern Railroad Pedestrian 1,000,000
Underpass, Tennessee...................................
US 12 Improvements from Burbank to Walla Walla, WA, 1,000,000
Phase VII..............................................
US 14 Pierre-Fort Pierre Bridge Rehabilitation, South 1,000,000
Dakota.................................................
US 17 in Beaufort County, NC............................ 2,000,000
US 2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County--Idaho................ 1,000,000
US 30 and SR 230/Harrisburg Pike Improvements, PA....... 630,000
US 35 Improvements, West Virginia....................... 5,000,000
US 51 Widening, Hernando, MS............................ 1,250,000
US 51/SR 43 Connector Road, MS.......................... 3,250,000
US 63 and Gans Road Interchange, Missouri............... 4,500,000
US 93 Hamilton to Missoula.............................. 1,000,000
US Highway 11, St. Tammany, Louisiana................... 4,000,000
US Highway 21 from Roaring Gap to Sparta, NC............ 997,000
US Route 1 and SR 452 Improvements, PA.................. 500,000
US-2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County, Idaho................ 1,000,000
US-6 Passing Lanes, Emery County, Utah.................. 3,000,000
Utah County I-15 Reconstruction Mitigation Strategic 2,000,000
Plan: Redwood Road and Lehi 1000 South, Utah...........
Walden Point Road, AK................................... 2,250,000
Warrensburg Hwy 13 Bypass, Missouri..................... 5,000,000
Warsaw Bridge Replacement, Warsaw, MO................... 200,000
Washington Boulevard Transportation Project, Camanche, 200,000
Iowa...................................................
Wasilla Road improvements, AK........................... 750,000
West High Development, MO............................... 500,000
West Veterans Boulevard Extension, Auburn, Alabama...... 1,500,000
West Virginia Drive, City of Port St. Lucie, Florida.... 1,000,000
West Virginia Route 2 Improvements, WV.................. 9,500,000
Wheeler Peak Drive Road Upgrade, NV..................... 1,000,000
WV Route 9.............................................. 5,000,000
Zora and Main Street Interchange, MO.................... 1,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans Regional Redevelopment Planning, Louisiana.--
The Committee instructs the grantee for the New Orleans
Regional Redevelopment Planning to be coordinated with the New
Orleans area foundation.
Section 125 transfers funding from a New Haven, Missouri,
project to route 100 and highway 19 improvements.
Section 126 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy
American requirements.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was
established within the Department of Transportation by the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-
159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier
safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Highway Administration.
FMCSA's primary mission is to improve the safety of
commercial vehicle operations on our Nation's highways. To
accomplish this mission, FMCSA is focused on reducing the
number and severity of large truck crashes. FMCSA is
responsible for ensuring that Mexican commercial vehicles
entering the United States operate in accordance with the North
American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and comply with all U.S.
hazardous material and safety regulations. In addition, FMCSA
oversees compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Commercial
Regulations through increased household goods carrier
enforcement, education and outreach.
Agency resources and activities contribute to safety in
commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including
the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety
violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation;
improvements in information systems; training; and improvements
to commercial driver's license testing, recordkeeping, and
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely
with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual
citizens.
MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU]
provides funding authorizations for FMCSA's Motor Carrier
Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants.
Under these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA's expanded
scope as authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new
and enhanced security measures. Additionally, funding supports
border enforcement and safety-related activities associated
with implementation of the NAFTA requirement that Mexican long-
haul shippers be allowed to operate within the United States
subject to the same safety requirements placed on U.S.
carriers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $517,000,000 for FMCSA
in fiscal year 2007, which is equal to the requested amount and
$26,950,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, 2006........................................ $210,870,000
Budget estimate, 2007 (limitation)...................... 223,000,000
House allowance......................................... 223,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 223,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides the necessary resources to support
motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the
agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports
nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement
efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the
U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering the
United States are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor
carrier regulatory development and implementation, information
management, research and technology, safety education and
outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone
hotline.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$223,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The
recommendation is consistent with SAFETEA-LU authorization
levels and is $12,130,000 more than fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The bill specifies that $10,296,000 for the research and
technology program is available for obligation until September
30, 2010.
OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $151,107,000 for operating
expenses.
State Enforcement of Farm Operations.--The Committee is
concerned about the confusion and the unnecessary burdens
imposed on farm operators and State enforcement officials
associated with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 381-397. Clearly,
farmers operating their own equipment to transport their own
farm commodities to local markets are intended in many if not
most cases to be exempt from the Federal regulatory
requirements imposed on commercial operators. In regard to the
regulations referenced, the Committee directs the FMCSA to
review and provide a report to the Committee within 90 days
after the date of enactment of this act outlining: the explicit
legal requirements for farm operators and State enforcement
officials; the flexibility, waivers and exemptions available to
States in enforcing Federal requirements; the conditions
related to farm operator compliance that compel the DOT to
withhold Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program assistance to
States; and, recommendations on how these Federal requirements
may be simplified and made more uniform to avoid unnecessary
and unintended confusion and regulatory burdens.
Household Goods Enforcement.--The Committee recommends
$1,500,000 for household goods enforcement. The Committee
encourages FMCSA to assert its role to enforce Federal laws and
regulations with respect to transportation of household goods
and to do everything possible to increase the number of
investigations against unscrupulous household goods movers.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee recommends $4,087,000
for the working capital fund. The Committee recommendation is
consisent with the budget request and more than a 6 percent
increase above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Trucking.--Section 350 of the
fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act (Public Law
107-87) mandated that certain safety requirements must be met
for Mexican motor carriers to enter the United States. Prior to
the enactment of that legislation, on June 27, 2002, the
Committee held a joint hearing with the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation on cross-border truck and bus
operations at the United States-Mexico border. At that hearing,
the Department of Transportation's Inspector General pointed
out that, despite the fact that FMCSA had issued a rule
requiring States to authorize their enforcement personnel to
take action when they encounter a vehicle without valid
operating authority, only two States had taken the necessary
action by the time of that hearing. Today, more than 3 years
later, some States have still not provided authorization for
their enforcement personnel to take trucks without the proper
operating authority out-of-service despite the fact that the
FMCSA established a deadline for compliance with this
requirement of September 30, 2003.
The Committee is frustrated and dismayed to learn of the
slow responsiveness by several States in complying with this
Federal requirement. The Committee has tasked the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration with carrying out congressional
intent on all of the safety requirements established in section
350 of Public Law 107-87 and the implementation of all Federal
motor carrier safety regulations. This includes the provision
in section 350 requiring that inspectors of Mexican trucks
affix a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance [CVSA] decal showing
that the vehicle meets all necessary requirements. Given the
Agency's disappointing results in compelling compliance by the
States to the above-cited requirements, the Committee directs
the Administrator to redouble her efforts and take whatever
steps are necessary to ensure that States come into full
compliance with all the safety requirements and intent set
forth in section 350.
Federally Conducted Compliance Reviews.--The Committee is
concerned that the number of federally conducted compliance
reviews and enforcement actions have decreased significantly
since the new entrant program commenced and directs FMCSA to
ensure that it reverses this trend consistent with the
objectives and goals of MCSIA. The Committee also directs FMCSA
to work closely with the States to promote their continued
participation in a vigorous compliance review program. In order
to monitor its progress, FMCSA shall provide a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the number of
completed compliance reviews and new extrant safety audits in
conjunction with the Agency's fiscal year 2008 budget request.
PROGRAM EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $70,893,000 for FMCSA's program
expenses.
Research and Technology.--The Committee recommends
$10,296,000 for research and technology. The recommendation is
consistent with the requested amount and $313,000 more than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Outreach and Education.--The Committee recommends
$4,000,000 for the outreach and education program, consistent
with the budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
The Committee reminds FMCSA that data collection and analysis
are two of the most important aspects of any program that
focuses on ways to inform and influence behavior. The Committee
expects FMCSA to manage the Outreach and Education program with
the same performance, data, and analysis-driven focus which the
Agency is implementing for the enforcement programs. The
Committee directs FMCSA to use funds provided above the budget
estimate to continue the outreach program with the goal of
enhancing the coordination and effective enforcement of Federal
laws and regulations with respect to household goods
transportation. The Committee directs FMCSA to develop a
process as part of the household goods outreach program for
State safety authorities and law enforcement agencies to refer
investigations to the appropriate Federal authorities.
Information Management Program.--The Committee recommends
$43,175,000 for FMCSA's information management program [IMP],
which is consistent with the budget request and $1,504,000 more
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.............. $279,180,000 $279,180,000
Budget estimate, 2007............. 297,502,000 297,502,000
House allowance................... 294,000,000 294,000,000
Committee recommendation.......... 294,000,000 294,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides the necessary resources for the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] State grants. Grants
will be used to support State compliance reviews; identify and
apprehend traffic violators; conduct roadside inspections; and
support safety audits on new entrant carriers. Grants are also
provided to States for enforcement efforts at both the southern
and northern borders to ensure that all points of entry into
the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety
measures; improvement of State commercial driver's license
[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from
being issued CDL's; and the Performance Registration
Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links
State motor vehicle registration systems with carrier safety
data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $294,000,000 for the payment of obligations
incurred in carrying out motor carrier safety grant programs.
The Committee recommendation is consistent with the budget
estimate and is consistent with the amount of contract
authorization for this program under SAFETEA-LU.
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$294,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended
limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and is
consistent with the amount of contract authorization for this
program under SAFETEA-LU. The Committee recommendation is
$14,820,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. In
addition, the Committee recommends the allocation of $3,502,000
of revenue aligned budget authority [RABA] from the Federal-aid
highway program to this account as authorized by SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation for each grant
program funded under this account with the following funding
allocations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......... $197,000,000
Border enforcement grants............................... 32,000,000
Performance and registration information system 5,000,000
management [PRISM] grants..............................
MCSAP RABA.............................................. 3,502,000
Safety Data Improvement................................. 3,000,000
CDLIS................................................... 7,000,000
Commercial driver's license and driver improvement 25,000,000
program................................................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 25,000,000
[CVISN] grants.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $27,122,669 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $3,419,816 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
Section 131. SAFETEA-LU includes a provision for the repeal
of the Single State Registration System [SSRS] on January 1,
2007, and its replacement with a new Unified Carrier
Registration System [UCR]. The Committee, however, believes
that a repeal of SSRS is premature given that progress on
instituting the UCR has been insignificant. The current SSRS
brings in approximately $100,000,000 in registration fees to
the States that participate in the program, funds that are
often used to cover the cost of transportation safety and
enforcement programs. For this reason, the Committee includes
language that would delay the repeal of SSRS by 12 months, and
require the Government Accountability Office to report to the
Congress on the progress being made in establishing the UCR.
Section 132. This section makes a correction to Public Law
109-59 regarding the definition of a commercial motor vehicle
and regulation of freight forwarders and brokers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety
behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and
automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's
regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in
September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of
title 49, United States Code) and the Highway Safety Act of
1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code).
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths
and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor
vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety
research and development; and expand the National Driver
Register. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the
Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a
coordinated national highway safety program through financial
assistance to the States.
In October 1966, these activities, originally under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to
the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the
National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established
as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It
succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously
had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
(now codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of
title 49, United States Code). This act as originally enacted,
instructs the Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper
standards, consumer information activities, and odometer
regulations. Three major amendments to this act have been
enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment directs the Secretary to
set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards;
(2) an October 1984 amendment directs the Secretary to require
certain passenger motor vehicles and their major replacement
parts to be marked with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3)
an October 1992 amendment directs the Secretary to set and
administer automobile content labeling requirements.
NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws:
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter
301 of title 49, United States Code ); (2) the Highway Safety
Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle
VI of title 49, United States Code); (4) the National Driver
Register Act of 1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
[SAFETEA-LU].
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting
research, including the acquisition of required testing
facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register,
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of
1982.
The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States
Code) to be carried out by the States and for highway safety
research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403
of title 23, United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving
prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States
Code) to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk
driving prevention programs.
SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation of $819,250,000 provides
sufficient funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to maintain current programs and continue the
mobilization and paid media initiatives that have proven so
effective in increasing safety belt use and impaired driving
awareness.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2006 enacted recommendation
\1\ 2007 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $230,132,000 $227,250,000 $231,500,000
National Driver Register..................................... 3,960,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Highway traffic safety grants................................ 572,394,000 583,750,000 583,750,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 806,486,670 815,000,000 819,250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $234,092,430
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 227,250,000
House allowance......................................... 236,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 231,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
These programs support traffic safety programs and related
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and
local government, the private sector, universities, research
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These
highway safety programs emphasize alcohol and drug
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic
records and licensing, State and community traffic safety
evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety,
pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and
older driver safety programs, and development of improved
accident investigation procedures.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $231,500,000 in new
budgetary resources, which is $4,250,000 above the budget
request and $2,592,430 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract programs:
Safety performance................................ $14,905,000
Safety assurance.................................. 18,277,000
Highway safety.................................... 50,965,000
Research and analysis............................. 65,711,000
General administration............................ 673,000
Salaries and benefits................................. 75,000,000
Travel................................................ 1,364,000
Operating expenses.................................... 22,355,000
Grant administration reimbursement.................... (17,750,000)
-----------------
Total........................................... 231,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATING EXPENSES
Budget Documentation.--The Committee reminds NHTSA that
budget request materials submitted to the Congress should not
only include explanatory documentation for any proposed budget
increases; the budget materials should also describe any
proposed decreases to programs from the prior year's funding
levels.
The Committee recommends $5,403,000 for the working capital
fund, equal to the budget request.
Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(11) of SAFETEA-LU
provides for administrative and related operating expenses for
NHTSA carrying out chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code,
and for the highway safety title of Public Law 109-59. The
Committee recommends $17,750,000, to NHTSA for administrative
expenses associated with administering the highway safety grant
programs and related operating expenses.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE
Vehicle Safety Harmonization.--The Committee recommends
$206,000 for international harmonization activities, an amount
equal to the budget request.
New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee recommends
$10,500,000 for the New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].
Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.--The TREAD Act included a
requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue a rule
mandating new motor vehicles have a warning system to alert
operators when a tire is significantly under-inflated. In
compliance with this directive, in April of 2005 NHTSA
published a final rule that requires Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems [TPMS] to be installed in every new vehicle by model
year 2006. NHTSA notes the potential of TPMS in preventing
injury, saving lives and improving fuel economy. However, the
Committee is concerned that these impacts may be undermined if
consumers do not fully understand the technology. Therefore,
the Committee provides NHTSA with $750,000 and directs NHTSA to
carry out a consumer education campaign that would assist
drivers in understanding new TPMS technologies, their purpose,
and the valuable safety information that they provide.
highway safety programs
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the
following program activities in the following amount:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving...................................... $11,300,000
Drug Impaired Driving................................. 1,500,000
Pedestrians/Bicycles.................................. 1,665,000
Older Drivers......................................... 500,000
Motorcycles........................................... 800,000
National Occupant Protection.......................... 11,224,000
Enforcement and Justice Services...................... 2,717,000
Law Enforcement Training.............................. (500,000)
Emergency Medical Services............................ 4,320,000
Records and Licensing................................. 2,660,000
Highway Safety Research............................... 11,430,000
Emerging Traffic Safety Issues........................ 593,000
NOPUS................................................. 1,656,000
Enhance 9-1-1 Act Implementation...................... 500,000
International Activities.............................. 100,000
-----------------
Total........................................... 50,965,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving.--The Committee recommends $11,300,000 to
support the impaired driving program. This amount is equal to
the budget request. These additional funds will allow NHTSA to
continue to: (1) promote high visibility law enforcement; (2)
educate prosecutors, judges and law enforcement regarding
impaired driving and promote specialized or enhanced court
systems; (3) develop effective messages and countermeasures to
reach high risk groups; and (4) encourage widespread adoption
of medical screening and brief intervention for individuals
with alcohol abuse problems.
Judicial and Prosecutorial Awareness.--The Committee
recommends $1,100,000 for judicial and prosecutorial awareness
to expedite the detection, identification and tracking of hard
core drunk drivers. The Committee is aware that one of the
major factors in alcohol-related crashes is the number of
habitual drunk drivers involved in alcohol-related traffic
crashes.
The Committee directs NHTSA to work with State and local
law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and parole
officers to assist them in developing strategies that
specifically target the removal of habitual drunk drivers from
the road.
Motorcycles.--NHTSA's budget documents state that
motorcycle fatalities have increased for 7 straight years, for
a total 89 percent increase since 1997. Helmet use continues to
play a role in 40 percent of motorcycle accidents. The
Committee recommends $800,000 for motorcycle program
activities, the same as the fiscal year 2006 level.
National Occupant Protection Program.--Recent years have
seen encouraging increases in safety belt use across the
country, reaching 82 percent for 2005.
The Committee continues to urge NHTSA to be vigilant and
resourceful in its efforts to not only increase the seat belt
rate, but ensure that this vigilance is not overshadowing the
overall goal of reducing fatalities in this and every aspect of
highway safety. The Committee recommends $11,224,000 for
NHTSA's occupant protection efforts, which is the requested
amount.
To supplement NHTSA's overall safety belt effort, the
Committee recommends funding to continue the ``Click It or
Ticket'' national public service message program.
Emergency Medical Services.--The Committee continues to
support the development of a national database to collect EMS
data similar to those that exist for fire and police services.
The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007, of which $1,000,000 is to continue the
implementation of the National Emergency Medical Services
Information System [NEMISIS] data collection initiative at the
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. The Committee
views the implementation of NEMISIS, to be extremely important
in light of NHTSA's role as Federal coordinator of all EMS
systems.
International Activities.--The Committee recommends
$100,000 for NHTSA's international activities initiative.
The Committee recommends $500,000 for necessary expenses of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to support
the E-911 Implementation Coordination Office, established
pursuant to section 104 of Public Law 108-494.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Biomechanical Research.--The Committee recommends
$12,500,000 for biomechanics research. The Committee's
recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued
research of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network
program.
Maternal and Fetal Injuries in Vehicle Crashes.--The
Committee has become aware of possible increases in vehicle
crashes involving pregnant women. These vehicle crashes put
both the expectant mother and fetus at risk, yet little is
known of the incident, risks and characteristics of pregnant
women in crashes. The Committee directs NHTSA to explore the
feasibility of adding a gravid anthropomorphic dummy to its
vehicle testing procedures. A Federal standard on a gravid
anthropomorphic dummy may help spur the research to improve the
crashworthiness of vehicles for pregnant women. NHTSA shall
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
within 9 months of enactment of this act on the number of
crashes involving pregnant women and the injuries and
fatalities associated with those crashes. Also, the report
shall include an assessment of creating a crash test dummy that
would measure the injuries to the women and the fetus.
CIREN Research on Older Drivers.--The Committee is aware of
the growing population of older Americans, which is expected to
nearly double by 2030. In recognition of this growth and the
different health issues facing older Americans, the Committee
directs NHTSA as part of its CIREN program, to collect data
that will measure the impact of crashes on older populations
and that would assist in the possible development of a crash
test dummy representing older occupants. NHTSA is directed to
update the Committee on the CIREN program including its efforts
related to older drivers.
Plastic and Composite Vehicles.--The Committee recognizes
the development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the
automotive industry and the important role these technologies
play in improving and enabling automobile performance. The
Committee recommends $500,000 to continue development of
Lightweight Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles [PCIV]
research to examine possible safety benefits. The program will
help facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the
Department of Energy and industry stakeholders for the
development of safety-centered approaches for future light-
weight automotive design.
Crash Avoidance and Human Vehicle Performance.--The
Committee includes $6,750,000 for the crash avoidance and human
vehicle performance program as requested in the budget
estimate. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that
no less than $3,000,000 be utilized for the National Advance
Driving Simulator.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System.--The Committee
recommends $7,063,000 for the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System [FARS], equal to the proposed budget request and the
fiscal year 2006 enacted base funding.
FAST FARS.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the
FAST FARS data collection program. An effective FAST FARS
system will permit the agency to analyze the effectiveness of
its programs more quickly, thereby improving decision making to
better utilize limited safety funding resources.
Vehicle Crash Causation Study.--The Committee continues to
support the ongoing vehicle crash causation study and provides
$7,000,000, the requested level, for this purpose.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Safety.--
The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's initiative to address
possible safety concerns as hydrogen fuel cell and other
alternative fuel cell vehicles are introduced into the Nation's
fleet. The fiscal year 2007 budget request, $925,000, is
provided for this purpose.
national driver register
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation Limitation
of contract on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006........................ $4,000,000 $3,960,000
Budget estimate, 2007....................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
House allowance............................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Committee recommendation.................... 4,000,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding to implement and operate the
Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety
by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to
identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked
for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the
influence of alcohol or other drugs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred
in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the
budget estimate and is equal to the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended
limitation is the same as the budget request and is $40,000
more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................. $578,176,000 $572,394,000
Budget estimate, 2007................. 583,750,000 583,750,000
House allowance....................... 587,750,000 587,750,000
Committee recommendation.............. 583,750,000 583,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
SAFETEA-LU reauthorizes three State grant programs: highway
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and
authorizes for the first time an additional five State
programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety
information systems improvement grants, high visibility
enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety
incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants.
The highway safety grant program under section 402 of title
23, United States Code SAFETEA-LU established a new safety belt
performance incentive grant program under section 406 of title
23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU also established a new
program of incentive grants under section 408 of title 23,
United States Code; SAFETEA-LU amended the alcohol-impaired
driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by
section 410 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU
establishes a new program to administer at least two high-
visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year
to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce
alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles;
and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of
motor vehicles.
Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU
established a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle
safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs. Section
2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive grant program
these grants may be used only for child safety seat and child
restraint programs.
Grant Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of
SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses
related to the administration of the grants programs and
supports the national occupant protection user survey and
highway safety research programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $583,750,000 for payment on
obligations incurred in carryout provision of the highway
traffic safety grant programs. The Committee recommendation is
consistent with the amount of contract authorization for
highway traffic safety grant programs under SAFETEA-LU. The
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the
budget estimate and $5,574,000 more than fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$583,750,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal
to the budget estimate and $11,356,000 more than fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation on
obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant
program as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................. $17,750,000
Highway safety programs (section 402)................... 220,000,000
Occupant protection programs (section 405).............. 25,000,000
Alcohol impaired driving countermeasures incentive 125,000,000
grants (section 410)...................................
High visibility enforcement program (section 2009)...... 25,000,000
Motorcyle safety (section 2010)......................... 6,000,000
State traffic safety information systems improvements 34,500,000
(section 412)..........................................
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive 6,000,000
grants.................................................
Safety belt performance grants (section 406)............ 124,500,000
---------------
Total............................................. 445,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $6,772,751 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $8,553 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $5,646,863 in unobligated balances from
amounts made available under this heading in prior
appropriations acts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
Section 140 includes a provision to allows the Secretary to
transfer funds in any fiscal year provided for administrative
expenses for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's National Driver Register, under section
2001(a)(7) of Public Law 109-59, and for the agency's
administrative and related operating expenses, under section
2001(a)(11) of Public Law 109-59, to the ``Operations and
Research'' account and the ``Operations and Research,
Limitations on Obligations, Highway Trust Fund'' account.''
Section 141 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
submit a report to Congress describing the feasibility and
marginal production costs of making all new passenger
automobiles and light trucks sold in the United States capable
of using a flexible fuel mixture.
Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $144,490,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 150,578,000
House allowance......................................... 150,153,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,578,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $150,578,000 for Safety and
Operations for fiscal year 2007, which is consistent with the
budget request and $6,088,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that,
$13,870,890 remains available until expended.
RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $54,524,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 34,650,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 34,650,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Railroad Research and Development provides for research in
the development of safety and performance standards for
railroads and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's
transportation infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,650,000
for railroad research and development, which is the same as the
budget request and $19,874,000 less than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends:
$250,000 for the Constructed Facilities Center at West
Virginia University to develop manufactured modules using
innovative manufacturing techniques, advanced blast resistant
materials and structural systems, and embedded modern sensors;
$750,000 for Marshall University, in cooperation with the
University of Nebraska, to develop a new track stability
technology using the actual rail lines in the states as the
calibration test beds; and
$500,000 for the Las Vegas-Los Angeles High Speed Rail
Study to conduct the conceptual engineering and capacity
modeling for multi-frequency passenger rail service between Las
Vegas and Los Angeles.
GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,293,633,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 900,000,000
House allowance......................................... 900,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,400,000,000
\1\ Funds to be available for transfer to the Surface Transportation
Board for directed service of commuter rail obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a
for-profit corporation that operates intercity passenger rail
services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition
to serving as a contractor in various capacities for several
commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the Rail
Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-518) in response
to private carriers' inability to profitably operate intercity
passenger rail service due a steady decline in ridership that
began in the 1920's. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common
carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for
the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental
cost.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
CAPITAL GRANTS FOR THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
The Committee recommends $750,000,000 for capital grants to
Amtrak. Of this amount, no more than $295,000,000 is available
for debt service payments. The Committee is concerned about the
safety and efficiency of the Nation's passenger rail system and
has provided the funds needed to ensure Amtrak's major capital
needs are met. The Committee continues to believe that
providing funds in the forms of grants for Amtrak's capital
needs ensures greater oversight and more optimal use of
taxpayers' resources.
Because the Committee is concerned about the uncertainty of
what benchmarks must be reached to achieve a systemwide state-
of-good repair, the Committee has included a new provision
allowing the Federal Railroad Administration to retain up to
one-quarter of 1 percent of Amtrak's capital subsidy to provide
meaningful oversight to Amtrak's major capital investments.
Amtrak has begun to undertake projects that are significant in
size and cost, such as the replacement of the bridges across
the Thames and Niantic Rivers in Connecticut and the
ventilation towers for the Hudson and East River tunnels in New
York and New Jersey. Moreover, as the failure of Amtrak's
electrification system between New York City and Washington,
DC, on May 25 of this year demonstrated, the lack of action on
Amtrak's major capital assets has the potential for adversely
affecting transportation over a wide region.
While the FRA has assumed the responsibility of providing
annual capital grants to Amtrak, the FRA has yet to possess the
resources necessary to provide meaningful oversight of major
capital investments. As an example, FRA does not have the
resources to review independently the design and cost estimates
for the new bridges, to assess whether the bridges have been
built according to design, or to review and, if necessary,
recommend corrective measures if the bridge fabrication and
construction begins to exceed estimates and schedules. Indeed,
FRA's oversight is limited to reviewing reports on project
progress from Amtrak's engineering and mechanical departments
except where FRA's limited staff might have expertise in a
specific area that coincides with a capital project. The
Federal Transit Administration performs its oversight of major
projects through Project Management Oversight consultants. The
Committee believes that FRA should use a similar approach.
While the amount provided for this purpose is modest in
absolute terms, it should be adequate to initiate the oversight
program and for FRA to review those large projects important
for maintaining or improving safety and operational reliability
where there may be significant risk in achieving the expected
cost, schedule or scope of the project. It is expected that
with this enhanced ability that FRA will report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on a regular basis on
the state of Amtrak's capital program.
The Committee remains concerned about the significant costs
associated with Amtrak's food and beverage and first-class
services. While Amtrak has shown commendable progress in its
efforts to reform these services, the Committee believes that
further oversight and accountability is needed. The Committee
has included a provision that prohibits the Secretary of
Transportation from approving any capital grant request that
proposes spending funds on the retrofitting, refurbishing or
maintenance of equipment or facilities used for food and
beverage or sleeper class services unless the proposed plans
comply with the stated goal of eliminating Federal subsidies
for these services by 2011. While Amtrak's services meet basic
mobility needs, the Committee does not believe that Federal
subsidies should be directed toward the enhancement of services
and amenities that only add to Amtrak's operational losses.
As Amtrak itself has noted, Amtrak's equipment and
infrastructure require significant investment to achieve a
state-of-good repair. Amtrak has, on repeated occasions,
diverted funds needed for capital investments to cover
operational losses. This has had the effect of leaving Amtrak's
system in a less than optimal state. While the Committee has
pressed both Amtrak and the Department of Transportation to
provide a detailed and prioritized list of needs to return
Amtrak's infrastructure to a state-of-good repair, both
entities have either been unable or unwilling to do so. The
administration's capital grant request for Amtrak for fiscal
year 2007 is $500,000,000, but it remains unclear what this
number will achieve in restoring Amtrak's system to the
necessary state-of-good repair. If the Committee were better
able to discern what projects could be funded with more
resources, it would be better positioned to justify the
provision of such resources. The Committee has, therefore,
included provisions mandating that the administration's budget
submission for fiscal year 2008 include a detailed capital
investment plan that prioritizes and provides cost estimates
for capital projects necessary to achieve safe, efficient, and
timely intercity passenger rail service. This plan should
incorporate input from the States and railroads where Amtrak
provides services or its infrastructure is used detailing what
investments are necessary to ensure timely and safe
transportation services. The Committee believes that such a
plan will better enable Congress, Amtrak, and the
administration to chart a future path for Amtrak and to more
strategically provide for Amtrak's many capital needs.
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION
Despite the lack of action on a comprehensive
reauthorization of Amtrak, the Committee notes that there are
signs that Amtrak is making some progress in addressing the
significant imbalance between its operating expenses and
revenues. The Committee is pleased with reports of savings and
other efficiencies achieved through the reforms contained in
the fiscal year 2006 Transportation appropriations act
directing savings through operating efficiencies, including,
but not limited to, modifications to food and beverage service
and first-class service. Amtrak also has improved its
accounting and its capital project management and reporting. It
has renewed focus on improving on-time performance on the
Northeast Corridor that is resulting in measurable
improvements. Amtrak is implementing a consistent approach to
seeking compensation from States for service largely within one
State modeled after what States on the Pacific Coast have been
doing for years and Amtrak has initiated a review of the future
of its long distance service. All of these initiatives are
positive signs. While most of these reforms can be found in
directives from this Committee or conditions in Amtrak's grant
agreement with FRA, the Amtrak Board, and Amtrak's current
management deserve credit for serving as instruments and
advocates of needed change.
Despite the concerns stated previously, the Committee is
pleased that Amtrak has implemented strategic initiatives in 15
areas including: a plan for restructurings its food and
beverage service and dining and lounge car operations over
several years; adopting a reliability-centered maintenance
approach to increase fleet maintenance efficiencies;
consolidating maintenance facilities and reducing maintenance
overtime; outsourcing and reducing staff at stations; improving
fuel efficiency; renegotiating labor agreements to eliminate
outsourcing and work rule restrictions; and reducing outside
legal fees. While Amtrak is making positive steps toward
reforms, the Committee remains concerned that other initiatives
such as restructuring long-distance train services, improving
financial management systems, and improving service reliability
on the Northeast Corridor are only in the beginning of the
planning stage, and that many of the initiatives have not yet
translated into any meaningful way of improving Amtrak's bottom
line.
The Committee remains interested in making sure that Amtrak
is fully addressing reform opportunities and meeting
benchmarked goals that are sustainable over the long term on
food and beverage reforms, sleeper car and long distance
service in particular. Amtrak continues to require a
significant claim on the discretionary Federal financial
resources available for transportation and places significant
stress on this Committee in finding sufficient resources to
keep Amtrak running. For this reason, the Committee will
continue to insist on reform initiatives with timelines and set
benchmarked goals so that the Committee will know with some
degree of confidence that the Federal taxpayer's funds,
regardless of the amount, provides a high quality product in a
cost-effective manner.
The most glaring examples of the failure of Amtrak to serve
as an effective steward of the taxpayer's investments are in
the areas of food and beverage service and first-class service.
Both the Amtrak Inspector General and the Department of
Transportation Inspector General have singled out these
functions as primary examples of misplaced priorities in the
use of the financial resources available to the Corporation. In
fiscal year 2006, Amtrak's losses on food and beverage service
will equal over 10 percent of Amtrak's total subsidy and over
20 percent of its operating subsidy. Amtrak loses even more on
its first-class service.
While the Committee believes there is a role for Federal
subsidies on intercity passenger rail service, in particular
for capital investment, it cannot accept the concept that the
Federal taxpayers should pay for the cost of dinner and drinks
on the train or of first-class accommodations. Indeed, 49
U.S.C. 305(c)(4) authorizes Amtrak to ``provide food and
beverage service on its trains only if the revenues from the
services each year at least equal the cost of providing the
service.'' This statutory requirement seems to have been
ignored by Amtrak. The Committee recognizes that passengers on
trains, particularly those trains that operate on extended
schedules, need food. This does not mean that the food and
beverage or the first-class accommodations should receive a
Federal subsidy. The Committee notes that Amtrak has begun
initiatives for improving the financial performance of food and
beverage and first-class services--initiatives that the
Committee wants to nurture. Indeed, the history of Amtrak is
replete with initiatives that have been forgotten or ignored
because the attention of management, Amtrak's Board of
Directors, the Department of Transportation, and the Congress
have been diverted to other issues. Thus, this year, the
Committee wishes to build upon Amtrak's early work by requiring
that Amtrak develop realistic plans with meaningful milestones
to eliminate the Federal subsidies of these services over the
next 5 years. Amtrak is directed to reduce the net Federal
subsidy of food and beverage service and sleeper/first-class
service in fiscal year 2007 by 20 percent over the level of
subsidy, including that attributable to the operation and
maintenance of equipment and facilities solely used for these
services, in fiscal year 2005. The Committee requests that
Amtrak's Inspector General provide the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees with regular reports on Amtrak's
performance.
To better understand the cost effectiveness of Amtrak
today, the Committee directs FRA, in consultation with Amtrak,
Amtrak's Inspector General, the Government Accountability
Office, and such other entities that the Administrator deems
appropriate, to develop a set of metrics for important
functions performed by Amtrak, be they important from a safety
or operational perspective or important because these functions
consume a large amount of Amtrak's financial resources. FRA and
Amtrak will then identify how Amtrak and corporations and/or
public agencies with functions similar to Amtrak, performed
against these metrics in fiscal year 2006 or the most recent
year in which data are available. Amtrak will include in its
quarterly reports updates of its performance against these
metrics.
Another approach to determining the extent to which the
quality and cost of providing intercity passenger rail service
can be improved is to determine whether an entity other than
Amtrak can provide such services more efficiently and
effectively. While there has been an ongoing debate over
whether others could do better than Amtrak, there has yet to be
an effective test. This issue certainly resonates with the
States that provide financial support for intercity passenger
rail service. Amtrak's de facto monopoly limits any incentive
on Amtrak's part to control costs or enhance the quality of its
operation, and States must pay whatever Amtrak demands. The
Committee believes that, in the absence of reauthorization
legislation, an appropriate interim measure to determine the
feasibility of a State assuming greater responsibility over
intercity passenger rail would be a pilot program to determine
whether a State can reduce its costs and, thus, reduce the
Federal operating subsidy while maintaining or improving
service quality. This will be achieved by enabling a State to
assume responsibility for part or all of the functions that the
State presently pays Amtrak to do.
The Secretary of Transportation is directed to require
Amtrak to conduct a pilot program under which a State would
assume the financial responsibility for a train, route or
corridor that the State either presently subsidizes or has
committed to subsidize. The State would receive 75 percent of
the current fully allocated operating loss, which effectively
is the Federal subsidy of the service in the first year and 50
percent in the second and third years. Thus, this pilot would
not only yield information on the potential long-term benefits
of States assuming responsibility for trains they deem
important, it offers some reduction in the Federal operating
subsidy needs in the short term. This pilot would be
implemented as a contract between a State and Amtrak. The State
would use established State procedures to arrange for another
entity or entities to provide those functions the State wishes
to assume. Amtrak would make whatever other services,
equipment, facilities, including crew where incorporated into a
State's plan, available to the State at a cost that covers
Amtrak's expenses. The Secretary would effectively oversee
Amtrak's implementation of this provision. Amtrak and the State
should reach an agreement through amicable negotiations. The
Secretary would also be charged with keeping the process moving
and, where the State and Amtrak could not reach agreement,
serve to resolved such issues as the appropriate terms and
conditions for the use of Amtrak-controlled equipment.
On-Time Performance of Amtrak Long Distance Trains.---The
Committee is greatly dismayed with Amtrak's deteriorating on-
time performance outside of the Northeast Corridor. Such
delays, frequently longer than 3 or 4 hours, undermine Amtrak's
ability to attract repeat customers. Outside of the Northeast
corridor, Amtrak trains are dispatched by the freight railroads
over whose territory they operate. Under section 24308(c) of
title 49 of the United States Code, Amtrak trains have
``preference over freight transportation in using a rail line,
junction, or crossing'' unless the Secretary of Transportation
provides a specific exemption to this law. For this reason, the
Committee directs the DOT Inspector General to investigate the
root causes of Amtrak delays and compliance with the above
cited subsection of title 49. The report shall investigate all
pertinent issues regarding practices in dispatching trains and
delays in maintaining track used by Amtrak.
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
[RRIF].--The RRIF program was established by Public Law 109-178
to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local
governments, government-sponsored entities, or railroads.
Credit assistance under the program may be used for
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities.
SAFETEA-LU expanded the authority under the RRIF program;
currently, the unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may
not exceed $35,000,000,000 at any one time. Of this total, not
less than $7,000,000,000 is reserved for projects benefiting
freight railroads other than class I carriers. No Federal
appropriation is required to implement the program because a
non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount required
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk
premium. The Committee continues bill language specifying that
no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made
using Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium
amount during fiscal year 2007.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 150 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of
nominal value for use in certain outreach activities.
Section 151 prohibits funds for the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation
contracts for services at or from any location outside of the
United States which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a
full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within the United
States.
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such
services and systems.
The programs funded by the FTA are contained in the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], Public Law 109-59. The budget
request follows a new account structure, established under
SAFETEA-LU, which consists of four major accounts, three of
which are general funded--Administrative Expenses, Research,
and University Research Centers, and Capital Investment Grants.
The fourth, Formula and Bus Grants, is funded solely from the
Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2006 and the
administration's request:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 House Committee
Program 2006 enacted 2007 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses..................... $79,200,000 $85,000,000 $85,000,000 $85,000,000
Formula and bus grants...................... 6,910,132,000 7,262,775,000 7,262,775,000 7,262,775,000
Research and University Research Centers.... 75,200,000 61,000,000 61,000,000 61,000,000
Capital investment grants................... 1,440,681,660 1,466,000,000 1,566,000,000 1,466,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $79,200,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 85,000,000
House allowance......................................... 85,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 85,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract
resources, information technology, space management, travel,
training, and other administrative expenses necessary to carry
out its mission to promote public transportation systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $85,000,000 for the
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended
level of funding is $5,800,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator............................ $1,063,353
Office of Administration............................... 7,653,698
Office of Chief Counsel................................ 4,272,759
Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs..... 1,394,111
Office of Program Management (including the Office of 8,403,493
Safety and Security)..................................
Office of Budget and Policy............................ 9,258,714
Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation...... 4,876,078
Office of Civil Rights................................. 3,272,077
Office of Planning..................................... 4,717,764
Regional offices....................................... 22,419,998
Central Account........................................ 17,667,955
----------------
Total............................................ 85,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing
the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any
transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial
appropriation from this account must be approved by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the same
process used for reprogramming funds.
Budget Justifications.--The FTA is directed to submit its
fiscal year 2008 congressional justification for administrative
expenses by office, with material detailing salaries and
expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives of
each office.
Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee
directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
To further support oversight activities, the bill continues
a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the DOT Office of
Inspector General [OIG] $2,000,000 for costs associated with
audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must
come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over
the past several years, the OIG has provided critical oversight
of a number transit projects and FTA activities, which the
Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that
the Inspector General will continue such activities in fiscal
year 2007.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--TEA21, as amended,
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2008; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project,
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan,
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and
possible risks associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly
new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This
update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition,
FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in
the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to
preliminary engineering or final design.
FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................................. $6,910,131,690
Budget estimate, 2007................................. 7,262,775,000
House allowance....................................... 7,262,775,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 7,262,775,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
As proposed in the budget, Formula and Bus Grants includes
the following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean
fuels formula grants; formula grants for special needs of
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities; formula
grants for non-urbanized areas; job access and reverse commute
grants; new freedom grants; growing States and high density
States grants; bus and bus facility grants; rail modernization
grants; alternatives analysis; alternative transportation in
parks and public lands; and the national transit database. In
addition, set-asides from formula funds are directed to a grant
program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with
Disabilities Act accessibility costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,262,775,000 for transit formula
and bus grants from a limitation on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. The recommendation
is $352,643,310 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
This account includes a rescission of $28,660,920.
The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for
project oversight in current law instead of providing an
increase for program management of formula funds, as requested.
The Committee distributes, the total level of funding among the
formula categories as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbanized Area Formula............................... $3,947,144,400
Over-the-road Bus Program............................ 7,600,000
Elderly & Persons with Disabilities.................. 117,000,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula.................... 467,030,600
Bus and Bus Facility................................. 900,500,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization......................... 1,448,000,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute....................... 144,000,000
New Freedom.......................................... 81,000,000
National Transit Database............................ 3,500,000
Planning Programs.................................... 99,000,000
Alternatives Analysis................................ 25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands. 23,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3009 of SAFETEA-LU amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized
formula grants, by providing for a phase-out of operating
eligibility for urbanized areas which crossed over 200,000 in
population for the first time in the 2000 census, but continues
to allow the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized
areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally,
urbanized formula grants may be used to fund capital projects
and to finance the planning and improvement costs of equipment,
facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass
transportation. All urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in
population are statutorily required to use 1 percent of their
annual formula grants on enhancements, which include
landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to
parks.
Formula and Bus funds can be used for all transit purposes,
including planning, bus and railcar purchases, facility repair
and construction, maintenance and, where eligible, operating
expenses. These funds help transit systems alleviate
congestion, ensure basic mobility, promote economically vibrant
communities, and meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA] and the Clean Air Act [CAA].
The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the
program categories:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 and Section 5311 and Special Needs for
State 5340 Urbanized 5340 Non- Elderly and Job Access and New Freedom State Total
Area urbanized Area Individuals with Reverse Commute
Disabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... $17,757,310 $11,531,981 $2,031,112 $2,520,454 $1,341,689 $35,182,547
Alaska................................ 22,435,680 5,287,400 275,749 218,712 109,127 28,326,668
American Samoa........................ ................. 198,128 63,190 86,638 18,116 366,072
Arizona............................... 53,233,301 8,224,361 2,122,529 2,789,071 1,428,548 67,797,810
Arkansas.............................. 8,732,695 8,801,078 1,308,042 1,482,182 761,051 21,085,048
California............................ 637,409,387 20,178,894 12,367,520 20,630,436 10,147,556 700,733,794
Colorado.............................. 53,882,757 7,265,712 1,478,187 1,760,887 1,110,096 65,497,638
Connecticut........................... 65,239,473 2,372,431 1,437,179 1,186,944 1,097,915 71,333,943
Delaware.............................. 10,144,567 1,101,096 423,082 278,186 216,349 12,163,280
District of Columbia.................. 72,816,544 ................. 365,619 399,650 242,935 73,824,748
Florida............................... 188,812,559 11,938,051 7,890,887 8,740,426 5,440,473 222,822,396
Georgia............................... 73,598,292 14,854,892 2,962,922 3,927,582 2,458,689 97,802,378
Guam.................................. ................. 535,533 167,134 86,754 53,757 843,178
Hawaii................................ 25,300,938 1,718,384 584,095 481,097 303,970 28,388,484
Idaho................................. 6,315,238 5,072,764 557,451 663,139 322,397 12,930,988
Illinois.............................. 232,616,115 12,367,244 4,571,851 5,314,858 3,607,918 258,477,986
Indiana............................... 39,176,416 11,845,248 2,408,422 2,428,364 1,634,380 57,492,831
Iowa.................................. 14,900,302 8,813,714 1,243,967 1,090,305 693,372 26,741,660
Kansas................................ 10,984,546 8,174,258 1,115,566 977,774 601,609 21,853,754
Kentucky.............................. 19,618,629 11,172,945 1,872,803 1,943,690 931,398 35,539,465
Louisiana............................. 31,708,912 8,971,607 1,864,585 3,044,744 1,339,953 46,929,801
Maine................................. 3,838,677 4,761,201 658,535 532,282 309,363 10,100,059
Maryland.............................. 101,139,169 4,367,070 1,982,154 1,869,988 1,566,055 110,924,436
Massachusetts......................... 166,641,644 3,038,777 2,630,547 2,450,968 1,948,572 176,710,508
Michigan.............................. 72,595,701 15,131,932 3,803,866 4,194,169 2,894,852 98,620,521
Minnesota............................. 47,111,756 11,117,462 1,747,510 1,490,649 997,847 62,465,224
Mississippi........................... 5,508,784 10,069,922 1,311,767 1,536,366 715,108 19,141,947
Missouri.............................. 40,647,314 12,058,993 2,300,287 2,354,038 1,385,899 58,746,531
Montana............................... 2,820,380 6,552,507 464,254 480,936 225,706 10,543,783
N. Mariana Islands.................... 696,764 30,507 64,379 132,766 58,007 982,423
Nebraska.............................. 8,946,243 5,713,026 741,458 591,960 327,216 16,319,903
Nevada................................ 25,879,336 4,292,814 905,448 903,751 553,501 32,534,850
New Hampshire......................... 5,448,721 3,070,213 560,176 371,486 363,503 9,814,099
New Jersey............................ 280,684,486 2,846,191 3,344,865 2,992,052 2,549,253 292,416,847
New Mexico............................ 9,685,768 7,138,423 818,200 1,153,820 433,668 19,229,879
New York.............................. 625,104,763 15,289,317 7,925,192 10,287,412 5,801,102 664,407,786
North Carolina........................ 43,181,676 19,149,339 3,313,420 3,536,873 2,229,626 71,410,933
North Dakota.......................... 3,424,958 3,456,075 367,819 307,145 154,087 7,710,084
Ohio.................................. 93,965,897 17,413,497 4,447,567 4,664,132 2,867,435 123,358,528
Oklahoma.............................. 14,403,558 9,827,707 1,541,451 1,713,818 817,436 28,303,970
Oregon................................ 39,829,471 8,509,361 1,429,162 1,547,190 793,434 52,108,619
Pennsylvania.......................... 160,661,233 17,629,639 5,249,324 5,294,308 3,543,480 192,377,984
Puerto Rico........................... 52,950,512 1,226,050 1,791,572 6,990,591 1,390,749 64,349,474
Rhode Island.......................... 17,922,122 512,123 566,911 492,067 303,302 19,796,525
South Carolina........................ 16,117,501 9,625,026 1,770,069 1,973,447 1,130,635 30,616,678
South Dakota.......................... 2,688,866 4,277,960 405,186 329,640 173,676 7,875,328
Tennessee............................. 31,607,849 12,278,186 2,465,049 2,814,741 1,547,929 50,713,754
Texas................................. 212,828,027 29,417,889 7,341,337 13,095,027 5,884,975 268,567,254
Utah.................................. 31,123,282 4,176,204 735,982 938,490 447,018 37,420,977
Vermont............................... 1,423,405 2,299,609 346,510 196,980 124,633 4,391,137
Virgin Islands........................ 842,661 406,863 158,694 87,101 35,854 1,531,173
Virginia.............................. 59,491,923 10,839,984 2,599,542 2,691,215 1,871,053 77,493,718
Washington............................ 105,979,847 8,318,576 2,211,542 2,613,574 1,638,596 120,762,135
West Virginia......................... 5,701,734 5,870,001 987,018 1,116,308 556,512 14,231,573
Wisconsin............................. 43,010,894 11,741,348 2,019,973 1,989,522 1,393,903 60,155,640
Wyoming............................... 1,509,504 4,051,087 296,342 213,292 104,717 6,174,941
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................ 3,920,098,087 446,930,600 116,415,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,708,443,687
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight............................. 27,046,313 2,020,000 585,000 ................. ................. 29,651,313
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 3,947,144,400 448,950,600 117,000,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,738,095,000
=================================================================================================================
Tribal Transit Program................ ................. 10,000,000 ................. ................. ................. 10,000,000
RTAP.................................. ................. 8,080,000 ................. ................. ................. 8,080,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total..................... 3,947,144,400 467,030,600 117,000,000 144,000,000 81,000,000 4,756,175,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds for longer than the original 3-year
availability. The Committee, however, has extended funding for
many of these projects for more than 1 fiscal year, in an
effort to give transit agencies and FTA the opportunity to
spend these funds. The Committee strongly urges FTA to obligate
the grants before the commencement of the fiscal year 2007
calendar, as the Committee will not look favorably upon any
further requests for an extension of funds past 1 fiscal year.
Three, even four, fiscal years is more than an adequate amount
of time for project sponsors to obligate the discretionary
grants, except in the most unusual of circumstances. Transit
agencies are urged not to seek discretionary funding when the
work cannot be completed in a 3-year time frame. In addition,
by October 30, 2006, FTA should submit a report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing which of
these projects have not obligated the funds, including an
explanation of why this could not be achieved.
The availability of these particular funds is extended for
1 additional year, absent further congressional direction. The
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in
fiscal year 2004 for the following bus and bus facilities
projects:
Alaska--Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility
Georgia--Macon Multimodal Station
Idaho--Transit Coalition for Buses and Bus Facilities
Iowa--UNI Multimodal Project
Indiana--Indianapolis Downtown Transit Facility
Massachusetts--Springfield Union Station Intermodal
facility redevelopment
Mississippi--Intermodal Facility, JIA
New York--Nassau County, Hub Enhancements
Ohio--Central Ohio Transit Authority Facility
Pennyslvania-- Pittsburgh Water Taxi and
South Dakota--Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Public Buses and
Bus Facilities
Washington--Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility.
The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided
in fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following bus and
bus facilities projects:
Georgia--Macon Intermodal Center
Indiana--Indianapolis Downtown Transit facility
Massachusetts--Springfield Union Station Intermodal
facility
Massachusetts--Springfield Union Station Intermodal
Redevelopment Project; and
Washington--Aurora Avenue Bus Rapid Transit.
Bus Rapid Transit Project Las Vegas Boulvard, Nevada.--
Amounts made available in fiscal year 2003 for Bus Rapid
Transit Project Las Vegas Boulvard., Nevada shall not be
reallocated by FTA and shall be available to the Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada for Buses and Bus
Facilities, including Bus Rapid Transit projects, and shall
remain available until expended.
Orange County Transportation Authority.--Funds made
available in fiscal year 2002 for Costa Mesa CNG facility shall
be available to Orange County Transportation Authority.
Utah Intermodal Transportation Facilities.--Funds made
available in the fiscal year 2006 for the Westminster College
Intermodal Transportation Expansion for small buses in Utah
shall be made available for Utah Intermodal Transportation
Facilities.
Pablo Bus Facility.--Funds made available in fiscal year
2006 for Pablo Bus Facility and Pablo Buses shall be made
available for Pablo Bus Facility.
Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provides
$6,000,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT]
for section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects IDOT to provide at least $3,000,000 for Downstate
Illinois replacement buses in Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana,
Danville, Decatur, Peoria, Pekin, Quincy, River Valley,
Rockford, Rock Island, Springfield, Madison County, Rides MTD,
South Central MTD, and Macomb. Further, the Committee expects
IDOT to provide appropriate funds for bus facilities in
Bloomington, Galesburg, River Valley Metro in Kankakee, Macomb,
Peoria, and Rock Island, including $500,000 for the Macomb
maintenance facility and $500,000 for the Kankakee's River
Valley Metro operations facility.
Springfield Union Station Intermodal Facility,
Massachusetts.--The Committee continues to be supportive of the
construction of a new, affordable, intermodal facility in the
city of Springfield, Massachusetts. However, the Committee
notes that more than $12,700,000 of funds already appropriated
for this project from as far back as 2002 remain unobligated.
Still other funds provided for the project in authorization
acts also remain unobligated. The Committee directs the
government and transportation leaders in the region to
immediately focus on the task of developing a feasible project
plan that limits the Federal contribution for the project to
the sums already provided so that these appropriated funds can
be expended promptly. The Committee further directs the
Administrator to work with the appropriate city and regional
leadership toward this goal. The Administrator is requested to
report back to the Committee regarding progress on this project
not later than July 1, 2007.
West Virginia Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.--Consistent
with the provisions of section 3044 of SAFETEA-LU, the bill
includes a total of $5,000,000 for bus and bus facilities
within the State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2007.
Hybrid Bus Cost Share.--The Committee has not included a
provision to allow FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the
net capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid
electric system in a bus as proposed in the budget. The
Committee has stressed the importance of hybrid technology
buses in the past and remains committed to seeing hybrid
technology proliferate throughout the Nation's transit systems.
However, the Committee believes that waiving the required match
would result in less hybrid buses being purchased by transit
properties, not more. The Committee strongly believes that
local share requirements are the best deal for taxpayers when
it comes to stretching increasingly scarce Federal resources.
The Committee directs FTA to distribute funds made
available to carry out the Bus and Bus Facilities program in
this fiscal year as directed by SAFETEA-LU. Of the remaining
funds provided for that program in this fiscal year as well as
the $24,893,251 remaining in fiscal year 2006, the committee
directs the funds as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron METRO RTA Radio Replacement, OH................... $750,000
Alabama Senior Transportation Program, AL............... 1,000,000
Altoona Intermodal/Parking Facility Renovation Project, 1,000,000
Pennsylvania...........................................
AnchorRides Disabled Vehicle Maintenance Project, AK.... 100,000
Atlanta--MARTA Bus Acquisition Program, GA.............. 1,750,000
Bay Area Transportation Authority Replacement Bus 550,000
Purchase, Traverse City, MI............................
Ben Franklin Transit, Maintenance and Operations 750,000
Facility, WA...........................................
Bi-County Transit Center in Langley Park, Maryland...... 1,000,000
Boston College Green Line MBTA, MA...................... 1,000,000
Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center (CT)........ 5,000,000
Brockton Area Transit Authority Bus Replacement, MA..... 1,000,000
Broward County Alternative Fuel Buses, Florida.......... 1,000,000
Bucks County Intermodal Facility........................ 2,000,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, City of Roswell, New Mexico..... 400,000
Bus and Bus Facilities, Grant County, New Mexico........ 1,500,000
Calaveras County--Calaveras Regional Intermodal 500,000
Transportation Center, CA..............................
Camden County Intermodal Facility, New Jersey........... 1,000,000
Capital Metro--Bus and Bus Facilities, TX............... 4,800,000
CCTA Buses, Facilities and Equipment [VT]............... 4,000,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Phase 1, Dakota County, 3,700,000
Minnesota..............................................
Central Corridor Transitway, MN......................... 1,350,000
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) 3,250,000
Bus Procurement, Florida...............................
Church Street Transportation Center..................... 1,600,000
City of Billings--City of Billings' MET Transit 500,000
Authority Improvements.................................
City of Mobile Waterfront Project, AL................... 1,000,000
City of St. Joseph, Missouri, Bus and Bus facilities.... 84,000
City Utilities of Springfield Intermodel Transfer 2,000,000
Facility, MO...........................................
City of San Luis Obisbo--Replacement Buses, CA.......... 500,000
City of Lynwood--Lynwood Intermodal Transit Facility, CA 500,000
City of Hercules--Hercules Intermodal Terminal, CA...... 500,000
City of Pasadena--Bus Priority System, CA............... 500,000
City of Visalia--Visalia Buses and Bus Facilities, CA... 500,000
City of Oakland--Transit Improvements at BART Stations, 500,000
CA.....................................................
City of Fresno--FAX Buses, CA........................... 500,000
Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................. 500,000
Clallam Transit, International Gateway Project, WA...... 1,000,000
Coast Transit Authority, MS............................. 5,000,000
Colorado Transit Coalition--Colorado.................... 5,000,000
Columbia County Public Transportation Vehicle 120,000
Replacement, WA........................................
Community Transit, Bus Rapid Transit Vehicle 1,000,000
Acquisition, WA........................................
Diesel Paratransit Vans, Las Cruces, NM................. 140,000
Downtown Transit Center, Indianapolis, IN............... 1,000,000
Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal 100,000
Transit Facility Study, Iowa...........................
Ed Roberts Campus, CA................................... 500,000
Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Operations Facility, 1,750,000
Pennsylvania...........................................
Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................. 600,000
FAST Traffic Management, Southern Nevada, NV............ 1,017,000
Four County Elder Advocates Senior Transportation 150,000
Initiative, Joplin, Missouri...........................
Garfield County Public Transportation Vehicle 70,000
Replacement, WA........................................
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Express Buses. 2,000,000
Grant Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................... 480,000
Grays Harbor Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA............ 1,000,000
Great Falls Transit District--Bus and Bus Facilities.... 3,480,000
Greater Ouachita Port Intermodal Facility, Louisiana.... 3,500,000
Greater Richmond Transit Company Bus Facility, Virginia. 1,500,000
Hampton Roads Transit--Southside Bus Facility 1,500,000
Replacement, Virginia..................................
Hawaii Rural Bus Program................................ 3,000,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Capital Investment.............. 3,750,000
Indiana University Campus Bus Service Park and Ride, 1,500,000
Bloomington, IN........................................
Intermodal Facilities, Utah............................. 2,500,000
Island Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................. 435,000
JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS............................ 1,000,000
Jefferson State Hoover Intermodal Facility, AL.......... 1,250,000
Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA............... 480,000
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Bus 5,420,000
Replacement, MO........................................
Kansas Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Kansas......... 1,000,000
King County Metro, Bus Radio Replacement Program, WA.... 750,000
LACMTA Bus Facility Upgrade, CA......................... 1,000,000
Lakewood Township Multi Modal Facility Phase I, New 1,500,000
Jersey.................................................
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority--Satellite 500,000
Maintenance and Operations Facility, CA................
Long Beach Transit--Clean Fuel Buses, CA................ 500,000
Louisiana Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.............. 3,000,000
Lubbock Citibus Low Floor Buses, Paratransit Vans, 1,800,000
Facilities, and Equipment..............................
Mason Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................... 300,000
Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility, Tennessee.......... 2,750,000
Mesa, AZ Main Street Bus Rapid Transit.................. 2,500,000
Metro Atlanta--MARTA Automated Smart Card Fare 750,975
Collection System, GA..................................
MetroLINK Facility, Illinois............................ 1,000,000
Michigan's 1st congressional District Bus and Facility 2,000,000
Capital Needs, MI......................................
Montpelier, VT Transit Facilities [VT].................. 1,000,000
Nevada Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities................. 3,000,000
Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, New Jersey. 2,000,000
North Dakota Statewide Transit, North Dakota............ 2,000,000
Norwalk Pulse Point Facility Safety Improvements (CT)... 199,650
Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center, CT............ 2,000,000
Operations and Maintenance Facility, Memphis, Tennessee. 3,500,000
Oxford Public Transit, MS............................... 450,000
Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................. 210,000
Paducah Area Transit System in Paducah, Kentucky........ 2,000,000
Pierce Transit, Peninsula Park and Ride, WA............. 1,000,000
Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) 2,250,000
Bus and Bus Facilities.................................
Prospect & E. 21st Street intermodal Transportation 2,750,000
Center, OH.............................................
Pullman Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA................. 1,000,000
Replacement Buses and Bus and Facility Related 2,000,000
Equipment--Nebraska....................................
Replacement of buses for the Transit Authority of 1,000,000
Northern Kentucky......................................
Richmond Highway Public Transportation Initiative, 3,000,000
Virginia...............................................
Rio Arriba County Vehicles, Shelters, Building and 300,000
Compound for Fleet, New Mexico.........................
Sacramento Regional Transit District Bus and Bus 1,000,000
Facility/Sacramento Region Paratransit Vehicles, CA....
San Antonio Bus Facility Improvements and Bus Fleet 2,250,000
Modernization, TX......................................
San Joaquin County Bus Facility, CA..................... 1,000,000
San Diego Association of Governments--Regional Bus 500,000
Replacement Vehicles, CA...............................
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority--Paratransit 500,000
Vehicles, CA...........................................
Santa Fe Transit Center, Replacement Buses and Park and 1,500,000
Ride Lots, NM..........................................
Section 5309 fiscal year 2007 Bus Discretionary 6,000,000
Proposal, OH...........................................
Senior Transportation Connection of Cuyahoga County, OH. 750,000
SEPTA R-5 Intermodal Center, Pennsylvania............... 1,000,000
Shenango Valley Shuttle Service, Pennsylvania........... 600,000
Silver Spring Metrorail Station, South Gate Entrance 500,000
Opening, Maryland......................................
Skagway Intermodal facility, AK......................... 900,000
SMTS-Bus, Facilities and Capital Maintenance, MO........ 1,660,800
Southeastern Connecticut Bus Rapid Transit System (CT).. 1,000,000
Southern University Bus Enhancements.................... 250,000
St. Bernard Port Intermodal Facility, Louisiana......... 1,000,000
State of Arkansas--Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, 4,000,000
Rural, and Elderly and Disabled Agencies, Arkan- sas..
Statewide Bus & Bus Facilities Improvements, Utah....... 3,750,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Illinois.............. 6,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Missouri.............. 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, New Mexico............ 1,500,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, Tennessee............. 5,250,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI.................... 5,000,000
Statewide Bus Replacement, Iowa......................... 5,000,000
Statewide Electric Hybrid Bus Initiative by the Indiana 4,192,273
Transit Association, IN................................
Statewide O.A.T.S. bus and bus facilities, MO........... 1,000,000
Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-East 14th 2,000,000
Street Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Improvements, CA.....
Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility, City of Las 1,500,000
Cruces, NM.............................................
Treasure Valley, Idaho Transit Facilities............... 480,000
Tucson SunTran bus replacement, AZ...................... 2,000,000
Twin Transit Vehicle Acquisition, WA.................... 175,000
UNI Multimodal Project, Cedar Falls, Iowa............... 2,425,000
University of Delaware's Automotive Based Fuel Cell 1,000,000
Hybrid Bus Program.....................................
University Place Intermodal Transit Facility, Pierce 750,000
County, WA.............................................
Uptown Crossings Joint Development Transit Project, 2,000,000
Cincinnati, OH.........................................
Valley Transit Vehicle Replacment, WA................... 230,000
Wahiawa Transit Center.................................. 1,000,000
Wyandotte County Unified Government Transit Bus 1,000,000
replacement and facilities enhancements, Kansas........
Yolo County--Yolobus facility expansion, CA............. 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee directs FTA to distribute funds made
available to carry out the Alternatives Analysis Program in
this fiscal year as directed by SAFETEA-LU. Of the remaining
funds provided for that program in this fiscal year as well as
the $6,100,000 remaining in fiscal year 2006, the Committee
directs the funds as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Project, RI....... $1,220,000
Middletown to Newark Commuter Rail Connection Project, 1,220,000
DE.....................................................
Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, New Mexico...... 1,000,000
Commuter Rail--Eastern Jackson County, Missouri......... 1,000,000
Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Rapid Transit 530,000
System Development, Florida............................
Northwest New Jersey--Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger 830,000
Rail Project...........................................
SR-304/I-269 HOV Bus Rapid Transit, MS.................. 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006...................................... $75,200,000
Budget estimate, 2007..................................... 61,000,000
House allowance........................................... 65,000,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 61,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides financial assistance to support
activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve
public transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for
transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in supporting research
intended to identify different strategies to increase
ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel
consumption and air pollution, and enhance the quality of life
in all communities.
FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit
agencies with research results to help make them better
equipped to improve public transportation services and to help
public transportation services meet national transportation
needs at a minimum cost. FTA assists transit agencies to employ
new service methods and technologies that improve their
operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety
and emergency preparedness.
The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC]
program is to foster a national resource and focal point for
the support and conduct of research and training concerning the
transportation of passengers and property. Funds provided under
the FTA's UTC program are transferred to and managed by the
Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined
with a transfer of funds from the Federal Highway
Administration. The transit university transportation research
program funds are statutorily available to designated
universities in SAFETEA-LU.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $61,000,000 to continue the
university transportation research program. The Committee
recommendation is $14,200,000 less than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee recommends funds for the following:
--East Tennessee Hydrogen Initiative, Tennessee, $2,400,000;
--Staten Island North/West Shore Rail Plan Study, New York,
$600,000; and
--WVU Exhaust Emission Testing Initiative, West Virginia,
$1,000,000.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,440,682,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,466,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,566,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,466,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
to be used in financing mass transportation investments.
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed
guideway expenditures for existing systems. Under SAFETEA-LU,
funding for major bus fleet expansion and bus facility
construction and fixed guideway expenditures for existing
systems has been incorporated under Formula and Bus Grants and
is provided as contract authority supported by funds derived
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee action recommends a level of $1,466,000,000.
The recommended level is $25,318,000 above the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and the same as the budget request. A total of
$14,660,000 is set aside for oversight activities.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of new
starts funds in fiscal year 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project name recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska and Hawaii ferry projects, Alaska................ $15,000,000
Central Link Initial Segment, Washington................ 80,000,000
Central LRT Double-Track, Maryland...................... 482,822
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, Arizona......... 90,000,000
Charlotte (NC) Charlotte Rapid Transit Expansion 6,000,000
Project, North Carolina................................
Charlotte (NC) South Corridor Light Rail Project, North 70,744,065
Carolina...............................................
Commuter Rail, Salt Lake County to Weber County, Utah... 80,000,000
CORRIDORone Regional Commuter Rail...................... 2,500,000
CTA Douglas Blue Line, Chicago, Illinois................ 1,573,675
CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, Chicago, Illinois............ 40,000,000
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Northwest/Southeast Light Rail 80,000,000
MOS, Texas.............................................
Denali Commission, Alaska............................... 5,000,000
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, Virginia.................. 25,000,000
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Ohio............ 693,013
Galveston Rail Trolley Extension to Boulevard, Texas.... 2,000,000
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, Hawaii. 4,000,000
Houston METRO--Advanced Transit Program/METRO Solutions 15,000,000
Phase 2, Texas.........................................
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, New Jersey............... 100,000,000
Interstate MAX LRT Extension, Oregon.................... 542,940
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, New York........ 300,000,000
Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, 100,000,000
California.............................................
MARC Commuter Rail Improvements, Maryland............... 4,000,000
Miami-Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, 2,000,000
Florida................................................
Mid-Jordan Light Rail Transit Line, Utah................ 4,500,000
Mission Valley East LRT Extension, California........... 806,654
NJ Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, New Jersey............ 4,400,000
Norfolk Light Rail Project Final Design and 1,500,000
Construction, Virginia.................................
North Shore LRT Connector, Pennsylvania................. 55,000,000
Northeast Corridor Commuter Rail Project between 1,000,000
Wilmington and Newark, Delaware........................
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Minnesota.............. 1,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor, California........... 684,040
Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, California...... 3,000,000
Post Road Commuter Rail Facility, Connecticut........... 2,000,000
San Francisco BART Extension to San Francisco 2,424,694
International Airport, California......................
Schuylkill Valley MetroRail, Pennsylvania............... 1,000,000
South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall Light Rail, Oregon... 80,000,000
South County Commuter Rail Project--Wickford Junction 7,000,000
Station, Rhode Island..................................
Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project (T-REX) Colorado. 80,000,000
Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico................................ 2,670,518
Union-Pacific West Line Extension, Illinois............. 1,255,978
University Link LRT Extension, Seattle, Washington...... 15,000,000
West Corridor LRT, Colorado............................. 35,000,000
Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project, Oregon.. 27,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor Project.--The
Committee has fully funded the project allocations articulated
in section 3037 of SAFETEA-LU including the funding authorized
for the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project. Over
and above these amounts, the Committee has provided
discretionary funding from the Capital Investment Grants
program for this project. The combination of these two
appropriations will yield a total of $8,400,000 for this
project for fiscal year 2007.
Seattle Light Rail Initial Segment and Extensions.--
Consistent with the existing full funding grant agreement, the
bill includes $80,000,000 for the initial segment of the
Seattle Link light rail system. The bill also includes
$15,000,000 for the University Link extension that will shortly
be entering the final design phase. It has always been the goal
of regional transportation planners and the locally elected
leadership that the initial segment of this light rail system
should directly connect Seattle city center with SeaTac
International Airport. However, due to rapid changes in
security and infrastructure planning at the airport after the
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Full Funding Grant
Agreement [FFGA] for the initial segment could not include a
direct connection into the airport. In order to rectify this
situation and help provide for a seamless transit link directly
to the airport, the bill includes a general provision (section
145) intended to allow any Federal funds that may not be
necessary due to budget ``under runs'' in the performance of
the initial segment project to be used to assist in the
construction of the airport link. This provision will, in
effect, allow Sound Transit to benefit from its careful
management of the initial segment project, allowing the agency
to capture the Federal portion of any cost savings and use
those savings to close a critically important gap in transit
service in the region.
Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor.
The availability of these particular funds is intended for one
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in
fiscal year 2004 for the following new starts projects:
Connecticut--Stamford, Connecticut, Urban Transitway and
Intermodal Transportation Center Improvements.
Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements
District of Columbia/Virginia--Dulles Corridor Rapid
Transit Project
Pennsylvania--Schuylkill Valley Metro; and
Wisconsin--Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project.
The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided
in fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following new
starts projects:
Connecticut--Bridgeport Connecticut, Intermodal
Transportation Center Project
District of Columbia/Virginia--Dulles Corridor Rapid
Transit Project
Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements
Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor
Project; and
Wisconsin--Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project.
Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.--The
Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share of higher than 60
percent.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Section 160 exempts limitations previously made available
on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338.
Section 161 allows funds under this act, Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by
September 30, 2008 to be made available for other projects
under 40 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1,
2005, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred.
Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new projects under
Federal Transit Authority to be used during this fiscal year to
satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
Section 164 allows funds appropriated in prior years to the
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to be available for bus and
bus facilities.
Section 165 amends the Central Link Initial Segment
Project, as previously stated in the report.
Section 166 extends the availability of funds provided for
the Las Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project and makes
those funds available to the Regional Transportation Commission
of Southern Nevada for any bus or bus facilities project
eligible under section 5307 or 5309 of title 49, United States
Code.
Section 167 modifies the eligibility of funds provided in
fiscal year 2006 for the Miami Streetcar project.
Section 168 allows funds for the Alaska Hawaii Ferry set-
aside grant program to be used for the Hawaii Port
Infrastructure Expansion Program.
Section 169 allows funds under Capital Investments Grants
to be used for activities under 49 U.S.C. 5339.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC]
is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The
SLSDC is a vital transportation corridor for the international
movement of bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and
coal, serving the North American region that makes up one-
quarter of the United States population and nearly one-half of
the Canadian population. The SLSDC is responsible for the
operation, maintenance, and development of the United States
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake
Erie.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,121,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,000,000
House allowance......................................... 17,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,425,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is
responsible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $17,425,000 to fund
the operations and maintenance of the SLSDC. This amount is
$9,425,000 above the President's request and is $1,304,000
above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee rejects
the request to establish commercial tolls. The recommended
level is sufficient to fund all base requirements, including
concrete replacement at the two United States Seaway locks.
Maritime Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for
programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also
responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime
industry in support of the Nation's security and economic
needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD's use of ports and intermodal
facilities during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth
flow of military cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages
the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD
access to commercial and strategic sealift and associated
intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the
disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense Reserve
Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further,
MARAD administers education and training programs through the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools
that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who
are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation
needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of
the United States as a maritime Nation.
MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $154,440,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 154,440,000
House allowance......................................... 154,440,000
Committee recommendation................................ 154,440,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Maritime Security Program provides resources to
maintain a U.S. flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S.
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade.
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in
active commercial service and are required to provide
intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in
times of war or national emergency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $154,440,000 for the Maritime
Security Program, consistent with the budget request.
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $128,527,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 115,830,000
House allowance......................................... 116,442,000
Committee recommendation................................ 115,830,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds
the salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional
staff in the administration and direction for all MARAD
programs. The account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, six State maritime schools, port and intermodal
development, cargo preference, international trade relations,
deep-water port licensing, and administrative support costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $115,830,000 for Operations and
Training for fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is consistent
with the President's budget request and $12,697,000 below the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee has included
$14,850,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy to continue
with the major design and construction projects as identified
in the 10-year capital improvement plan.
Funds appropriated for Operations and Training are
sufficient to maintain the operating costs incurred by
headquarters and regional staffs in administering and directing
the Maritime Administration programs. The Committee
recommendation includes the necessary resources to cover the
costs of officer training at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy;
provide Federal financial support to the six State maritime
academies; support coordination efforts for U.S. maritime
industry activities under emergency conditions; and to promote
port and intermodal development activities.
Funds provided for this account are to be distributed as
follows: $61,747,000 for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
$9,900,000 for the State Maritime schools, and $44,185,000 for
MARAD operations, for a total of $115,830,000.
SHIP DISPOSAL
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $20,790,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 25,740,000
House allowance......................................... 25,740,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,740,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime
Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of
2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 115 ships
awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels are some 50 years old
or more and pose a significant environmental threat due to the
presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and
liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,740,000
for ship disposal. This amount is the same as the budget
request and $4,950,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The Committee is pleased that the Maritime Administration
expects to have completed the removal of all high priority
ships and many moderate priority ships from its fleet sites by
the end of fiscal year 2006. The Committee directs the Maritime
Administration to notify the House and Senate Committee on
Appropriations of any changes to this projection and the
reasons for such changes. The Committee is concerned about the
unexpected rising costs associated with the decommissioning of
the nuclear ship Savannah and the uncertainty of costs needed
to fund this project in future years. The Committee expects the
Maritime Administration to update these cost projections in its
fiscal year 2008 budget submission.
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,085,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,317,000
House allowance......................................... 3,317,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,317,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to
as, ``Title XI,'' provides for a Federal Government guarantee
of private-sector debt for ship construction and shipyard
modernization. This program fosters and sustains a U.S.
shipbuilding and repair industry which helps ensure that the
United States remains a maritime Nation.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-508), this account includes the subsidy costs
associated with the loan guarantee commitments made in 1992 and
beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan
guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any
year), as well as the administrative expenses of this program.
The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present value basis and
administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program
are appropriated to this account, and then transferred by
reimbursement to Operations and Training to be obligated and
outlayed.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,317,000 for
the Title XI, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program. This amount is
consistent with the administration's 2007 budget request.
NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -$74,000,000
House allowance......................................... -74,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ -74,400,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law
108-136) authorized the National Defense Tank Vessel
Construction Program to provide financial assistance for the
construction of five privately owned product tank vessels to be
available for national defense purposes in time of war or
national emergency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends rescinding funding for the
National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program but does not
repeal sections 3541-46 of the Maritime Security Act of 2003.
ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $15,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
As authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Assistance to Small
Shipyards program provides assistance in the form of grants,
loans and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital
improvements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for
capital and related infrastructure improvements at qualified
shipyards to enhance U.S. shipyards' ability to jointly compete
for commercial and international ship construction. The
Committee believes that this program will improve the overall
international competitiveness of the domestic shipbuilding
industry.
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006....................................................
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $30,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Program, established pursuant to title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, provides for a full
faith and credit guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt
obligations issued by (1) U.S. or foreign shipowners for the
purpose of financing or refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or
eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or
reconditioned in U.S. shipyards and (2) U.S. shipyards for the
purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology and
modern shipbuilding technology (Technology) of a privately
owned general shipyard facility located in the United States.
The Program is administered by the Secretary of Transportation
acting by and through the Maritime Administrator. Under the
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the
estimated costs of a project must be obtained prior to the
issuance of any approvals for title XI financing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for the Maritime
Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. Of the amount provided,
$20,000,000 is available for obligation upon enactment of this
act. To ensure appropriate oversight and financial controls,
the Committee has mandated that of the funds provided,
$10,000,000 cannot be expended until the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General has certified to the House
and Senate Committee on Appropriations that the Maritime
Administration is in compliance with the recommendations
contained in the Inspector General's audit reports on the title
XI progam.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to
furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease,
contract, or occupancy involving government property under the
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.
Section 171 prohibits obligations incurred during the
current year from construction funds in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this act or in any
prior appropriation act.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration
[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on
November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research
and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). The
PHMSA is responsible for the Department's pipeline safety
program as well as oversight of hazardous materials
transportation safety operations. The administration also is
dedicated to safety, including the elimination of
transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with
hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and
protect the environment.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,708,230
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 17,721,000
House allowance......................................... 17,721,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,721,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds program support costs for the PHMSA,
including policy development, civil rights, management,
administration and agency-wide expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $17,721,000 for this account, of
which $639,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
This funding is the same as the budget request and $1,012,770
more than the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee expects
PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in its budget
justification.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $25,876,620
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 27,225,000
House allowance......................................... 27,225,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,225,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily
shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments
to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous
materials transportation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $27,225,000 for hazardous
materials safety, of which $2,111,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2009. These funds are the same as the
budget request and $1,348,380 more than the fiscal year 2006
funding level.
PIPELINE SAFETY
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $72,279,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 75,735,000
House allowance......................................... 75,735,000
Committee recommendation................................ 75,735,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote
the safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipelines.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $75,735,000, of which
$18,810,000 will be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund and of which $56,925,000 shall be derived from the
Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Committee remains concerned with the significant
increase included in the budget estimate for funds from the
oilspill liability trust fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
requires that these trust funds be used exclusively for
oilspill prevention and response activities, and the Committee
strongly encourages the OPS to allocate oversight activities
between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and to factor
the oilspill liability trust fund into the allocation formula
that determines the hazardous liquid pipeline user fee
assessment to accurately reflect the amount and type of
oversight activities being conducted by the office consistent
with the trust fund.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $14,355,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 28,526,000
House allowance......................................... 28,526,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,526,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $28,526,000 for this activity, of
which $198,000 shall be for activities related to emergency
response training curriculum development and updates, as
authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee
includes an obligation limitation of $28,328,000 for the
emergency preparedness grant program.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,716,260
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,217,000
House allowance......................................... 6,367,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,217,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
[RITA] was established in the Department of Transportation,
effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta
Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-
246). The mission of RITA is to focus the Department's multi-
modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the
multifaceted research agenda of the Department.
RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the
Volpe National Transportation Center and the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an
allocation from the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-
aid highway account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,217,000 to continue research
and development activities in fiscal year 2007, of which
$3,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2009.
This funding level is sufficient to fund 33 full-time
equivalent [FTE] staff, an increase of 5 FTEs over the fiscal
year 2006 level.
Transportation Futures Program.--The Committee recommends
the budget request of $2,228,000 for the transportation futures
and applied technology program.
Research programs.--Within the fiscal year 2007 recommended
funding level, the Committee provides $1,120,000 for RITA's
research, development and technology [RD&T] programs as
follows:
Hazardous materials research and development [R&D]...... $80,000
Hydrogen fuels safety [R&D]............................. 500,000
RD&T coordination....................................... 540,000
The Committee recommends that the $1,120,000 provided for
these RD&T programs is available until September 30, 2009.
The bill also includes language that allows funds received
from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training to be credited to this appropriation.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
Limitation on obligations, 2006......................... ($26,730,000)
Budget estimate, 2007................................... (27,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (27,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (27,000,000)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by
an allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-
aid highways. The bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes
accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems;
collects information on intermodal transportation and other
areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of
the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation
through research, the development of guidelines, and the
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway
Administration, the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. In
addition, BTS will receive a portion of the revenue aligned
budget authority [RABA] increase to the Federal-aid highway
program in fiscal year 2007.
The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTEs in fiscal year
2007 in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing
that occurred previously within this agency.
Office of Inspector General
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $61,874,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 64,143,000
House allowance......................................... 64,143,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,143,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $64,143,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is
$2,269,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the
same as the budget request.
In addition, the OIG will receive $7,324,000 from other
agencies in this bill for audit and investigation activities
within that agency, as noted below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration.......................... $3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration.......................... 2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration......................... 1,050,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 500,000
Office of the Secretary of Transportation............... 125,000
Research and Innovative Technology Administration....... 125,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding is sufficient to finance 420 full-time equivalent
[FTE] staff in fiscal year 2007, for a decrease of 10 FTEs from
the fiscal year 2006 level.
Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee has included a provision in title VII (sec.
718) that requires all departments and agencies in this act to
report quarterly to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on all sole source contracts, including the
contractor, the amount of the contract, the purpose of the
contract and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as
opposed to a market-based procurement. The departments and
agencies also are required to publish this information
quarterly in the Federal Register. The Committee directs the IG
to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to these
contracts and DOT.
Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.
Surface Transportation Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................. $26,198,000 $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007................. 22,925,000 1,250,000
House allowance....................... 25,618,000 1,250,000
Committee recommendation.............. 26,500,000 1,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline
industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor
carriers and water carriers.
STB's rail oversight activities encompass rate
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity
bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate regulation involving
noncontiguous domestic water transportation, household goods
carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$26,500,000, an increase of $3,575,000 above the budget
request. Included in the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees,
which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding
level, the Board will be able to accommodate 150 full-time
equivalent staff.
The Committee's recommendation funds the following
increases above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualize fiscal year 2006 pay raise.................... +$113,000
Fiscal year 2007 pay raise.............................. +340,000
GSA rent and security increases......................... +1,849,000
Inflation............................................... +51,000
Annualize salary increase for fiscal year 2006 hires and +882,000
employee benefits increases............................
Working capital fund and telephone/utilities increases.. +21,000
Fiscal year 2007 relocation expenses (one-time)......... +375,000
Post move costs......................................... +274,000
Environmental travel increases.......................... +15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increases are offset by a reduction of $4,500,000 for
the one-time relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2006.
User Fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C.
9701, grants theBboard the authority to collect user fees.
Language is included in the bill allowing fees to be credited
to the appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees
are received and credited. The Committee continues this
language to simplify the tracking of the collections and
provide the Board with more flexibility in spending its
appropriated funds.
Administrative Provisions--Department of Transportation
Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or
allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level
IV.
Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and
expenses of more than 113 political and presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation.
Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in
this act to release personal information, including a social
security number, medical or disability information, and
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record
without express consent of the person to whom such information
pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from
withholding funds provided in this act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities,
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 187 prohibits funds in this act to make a grant
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriation at least 3 full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $2,000,000 or more is
announced by the Department or its modal administration.
Section 188 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments,
minor fees and other funds received by the Department of
Transportation from travel management center, charge card
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous
sources are to be credit to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation.
Section 189 allows that amounts from improper payments to a
third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the
Department of Transportation shall be available to cover
expenses incurred in recovery of such payments.
Section 190 authorizes the transfer of unexpended sums from
``Minority Business Outreach'' to ``Office of the Secretary,
Salaries and expenses''.
Section 191 does not allow OST to use any funds made
available under this act to approve assessments or
reimbursement agreements for funds appropriated to modal
administrations in this act, except those already underway
prior to the date of enactment of this act.
Section 192 prohibits the use of funds for a new EAS pilot
program.
Section 193 establishes certain requirements for civil
suits against moving companies.
Section 194 establishes certain requirements for the
submission of budget justifications to the Congress.
Section 195 establishes requirements for reprogramming
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Section 196 authorizes and directs the Secretary of
Transportation, notwithstanding any provision of law, to make
project grants for the cost of acquisition of land, or
reimbursement of the cost of land if purchased prior to
enactment of this provision and prior to a grant agreement, for
non-exclusive use aeronautical purposes on an airport layout
plan that has been approved by the Secretary on January 23,
2004, pursuant to section 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16), for any small
hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102, and had scheduled or
chartered direct international flights totaling at least 200
millions pounds gross aircraft landed weight for calendar year
2002.
Section 197 permits the FAA Administrator to reimburse FAA
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C.
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under U.S.C.
45303.
Section 198 prohibits assessments to be levied against any
program, budget activity, subactivity or project funded by this
act for the Working Capital Fund except under certain
circumstances.
Section 199. This section directs the STB to conduct a
hearing on ``bottle neck'' decisions. This provision further
directs the STB to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding small rate cases not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this act.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
salaries and expenses
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $194,626,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 223,874,000
House allowance......................................... 223,786,000
Committee recommendation................................ 223,874,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Departmental Offices consists of the Office of the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International
Affairs, the Office of Domestic Finance, the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Office of Tax Policy,
the Office of Economic Policy, the Office of the General
Counsel, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of
Public Affairs, Office of the Treasurer, and the Office of
Management. The Secretary of the Treasury has the primary role
in formulating and managing the domestic and international tax
and financial policies of the Federal Government. The
Secretary's responsibilities funded by the Salaries and
Expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing
United States domestic and international economic and tax
policy; fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of the
Government; executing the Nation's financial sanction policies;
disrupting and dismantling terrorist financial infrastructure;
protecting the United States and international financial system
from terrorist financing, money laundering, and other financial
crimes; managing the public debt; managing international
development policy; representing the United States on
international monetary, trade and investment issues; overseeing
Department of the Treasury overseas operations; and directing
the administrative operations of the Department of the
Treasury. The majority of the Salaries and Expenses
appropriation provides resources for policy formulation and
implementation in the areas of domestic and international
finance, terrorist financing and financial crimes, tax,
economic, trade, financial operations and general fiscal
policy. This appropriation also provides resources to support
to the Secretary and policy components, and coordination of
departmental administrative policies in financial and personnel
management, procurement operations, and information systems and
telecommunications.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $223,874,000 for the Salaries and
Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices account of
the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2007. This
amount is equal to the budget request and $29,248,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Within the funds provided under
this account, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for
information technology modernization; $100,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; $258,000 for unforeseen
emergencies; and $5,114,000 for the Treasury-wide financial
statement audits and other Treasury office and bureau audits.
Bill language also is included establishing a staffing floor of
139 FTEs and a funding level of $24,263,000 for the Office of
Foreign Assets Control [OFAC].
The Committee has established specific salaries and
expenses spending limitations for each program activity within
the Departmental Offices account. The Committee has included
authority for the Department to request funding transfers
between each of its program activities. The Department is
required to submit any such transfer requests to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and receive approval prior
to the execution of any such transfer.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level to the fiscal year 2007 budget estimate and the
Committee's recommendation for each office:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 budget Committee
2006 enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive direction............................................. $8,556,000 $17,501,000 $8,760,000
General counsel................................................. 7,773,000 .............. 8,741,000
Economic policies and programs.................................. 31,691,000 41,947,000 41,947,000
Financial policies and programs................................. 26,308,000 25,336,000 25,336,000
Terrorism and financial intelligence............................ 39,540,000 45,401,000 45,701,000
Treasury-wide management and programs........................... 16,675,000 20,372,000 20,072,000
Administration.................................................. 63,094,000 73,317,000 73,317,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Direction.--The Committee has decided not to
follow the budget request proposal to consolidate funding for
the Office of General Counsel under the executive direction
activity.
The Committee remains concerned with the significant
management challenges faced by the Department and believes that
greater emphasis must be placed on effective management
leadership. The Treasury Inspector General [IG] continues to
cite concerns with the corporate management structure of the
Treasury and believes that the lack of effective management
leadership has contributed to serious deficiencies at some of
the bureaus. In addition to concerns with corporate management,
the IG continues to cite the Department's management of capital
investments as a major management challenge. The IG
specifically recommends that the Treasury needs to ensure
consistency, cohesiveness, and economy among all bureaus by
establishing clear lines of accountability, providing
enterprise solutions for core business activities, and
providing effective oversight of information technology
investments and security. Given these concerns, the Committee
directs the Department to provide an action plan, as part of
its operating plan, on how it will address these issues. The
action plan should specify the management officials who will be
responsible for carrying out the plan.
General Counsel.--As requested in the budget, the Committee
has included an additional $542,000 to support three FTEs to
support the growing workload of the Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence [TFI] and an additional $492,000 for
three FTEs to provide legal support for OFAC.
Economic Policies and Programs.--The Committee recommends
an increase of $9,352,000 for the overseas attache program, as
requested by the administration. The Committee strongly
supports the expansion of this program.
Financial Policies and Programs.--The Committee recommends
$513,000 for the new Office of Dynamic Analysis as proposed by
the budget request.
The Committee urges the Department to create an external,
independent panel of experts to guide the new Office of Dynamic
Analysis. Members of the panel should be appointed by the
Secretary and should embody diverse points of view on pertinent
economic issues.
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.--The Committee has
included an additional $5,861,000 as requested for TFI to
support the hiring of additional intelligence analysts,
training, travel, professional development, and additional
secure workspace. Further, these additional funds will support
OFAC's efforts in enforcing economic sanctions against
terrorist networks. The Committee recognizes the diverse and
broad operational responsibilities of OFAC and accordingly, the
Committee has included bill language establishing a staffing
floor of 139 full-time equivalent positions for this office.
The Committee also strongly urges the Department and
administration to budget additional resources to ensure OFAC
has the capacity to carry out its responsibilities.
Due to the significant dependence on information technology
to carry out its activities and responsibilities, the Committee
also has included an additional $300,000 for TFI to create a
permanent position of Chief Technology and Information Officer
[CTIO]. This position will be responsible for managing and
overseeing all TFI information technology programs and needs,
including projects under OFAC and FinCEN. The Committee directs
that the CTIO will report directly to the Under Secretary for
TFI. Until this position is filled, the Treasury's Chief
Information Officer will continue to meet the IT needs of TFI.
TFI has become an increasingly important player in the
intelligence community and as a result, greater demands have
been placed on the office. To ensure TFI has the necessary
support to carryout its growing responsibilities and duties,
the Committee has provided full funding for additional staffing
resources, information technology systems, and other necessary
resources. The Committee strongly urges the Department to
provide the necessary support to TFI so it can meet its
demands.
Treasury-wide Management Policies and Programs.--The
Committee has provided $20,072,000 for this activity, including
$1,538,000 for performance management training. The Committee
supports the additional funds to provide training to managers
at the Department given the management challenges identified by
the Treasury Inspector General. The budget justifications,
however, do not provide adequate detail on the requested
training funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Department to provide specific details on these training funds
in the operating plan.
Congressional Justifications.--The Committee finds the
Department's congressional justifications to be lacking in some
basic areas. For example, the justifications do not provide
adequate explanation of legislative bill language changes and
fail to identify the specific activity account for which new
initiatives are proposed. Accordingly, the Committee directs
that the Department to address these issues in its fiscal year
2008 justifications.
Information Security.--The Treasury Office of Inspector
General [OIG] continues to cite the Department's information
security as a management and performance challenge.
Specifically, the Department faces serious challenges in
bringing its systems into compliance with information
technology security policies, procedures, standards, and
guidelines. Moreover, the OIG cites the need to establish and
maintain a system inventory as a core issue. This issue is
particularly critical given the Internal Revenue Service's
[IRS] recent loss of a laptop containing fingerprints of IRS
employees. The Committee strongly urges the Department to
address the OIG's findings and directs the Department to
provide a status report to the Committee by March 1, 2007.
DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $24,168,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 34,032,000
House allowance......................................... 34,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,032,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The 1997 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
established this account, which is authorized to be used by or
on behalf of Treasury bureaus, at the Secretary's discretion,
to modernize business processes and increase efficiency through
technology investments, as well as other activities that
involve more than one Treasury bureau or Treasury's interface
with other Government agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,032,000
for Department-wide systems and capital investment program
[DSCIP]. This amount is equal to the budget request and
$9,864,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
The following table compares the Committee recommendation
with the budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted
levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 budget Committee
Project 2006 enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network........................... $5,940,000 $21,200,000 $21,200,000
OFAC Enterprise Content Management.............................. .............. 627,000 627,000
Treasury Secure Data Network.................................... 2,772,000 4,003,000 4,003,000
Critical Infrastructure Protection.............................. 5,742,000 2,093,000 2,093,000
Back-up Disaster Recovery Capacity.............................. 1,729,000 1,656,000 1,656,000
Cyber Security.................................................. 2,281,000 2,244,000 2,244,000
E-Government initiatives........................................ 2,734,000 2,209,000 2,209,000
Integrated Wireless Network..................................... 1,485,000 .............. ..............
Enterprise Architecture......................................... 396,000 .............. ..............
Defense Messaging System........................................ 495,000 .............. ..............
Documents Management............................................ 594,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total DSCIP............................................... 24,168,000 34,032,000 34,032,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TFIN.--The Committee strongly supports the upgrade to the
Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network [TFIN] and considers this
project to be one of the Department's top priorities due to its
growing role in supporting the intelligence community and
combating terrorist financing. The Committee recognizes that
the additional funds provided will complete the redesign,
modernization, and the installation of full back up and
recovery capability for TFIN. Given the critical importance of
this system to TFI and the intelligence community, including
the Director of National Intelligence [DNI], the Committee
strongly urges TFI to coordinate closely and seek assistance
from the DNI's Office of Chief Information Officer and other
intelligence agencies.
ECM.--The Committee also strongly supports the OFAC
Enterprise Content Management [ECM] system. The Committee
believes that ECM is a high priority for OFAC to improve its
ability to carry out its operations in managing records and
responding to its customers. While the Committee appreciates
the recent attention this project has received from the
Department and the administration, it believes that more
resources should be devoted to this project. Unfortunately, it
appears that this project and other information technology
projects are being penalized in the administration's budget
process due to the Department's inability to develop an
enterprise architecture.
Working Capital Fund.--The Treasury working capital fund
[WCF] was established in 1970 to provide centrally common
administrative services across the Department, achieve
economies of scale, and eliminate duplication of effort and
redundancies. However, the Treasury's WCF lacks adequate
transparency as identified by the Treasury Inspector General.
The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to include in
its operating plan and its fiscal year 2008 congressional
justifications the following information: the estimated budget
of the WCF in total and by program; the projected WCF budgets
in total and by program for the next 2 budget years; the
estimated contributions to the WCF by bureau/office, by program
and how these contributions are determined; and a description
and amount of any long-term contracts, leases, or commitments
(those exceeding 1 year) of the WCF. The Committee also directs
the Department to include a new ``Working Capital Fund''
appropriations account in its fiscal year 2008 budget
submission. Lastly, the Committee directs the Department to
notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any
new working capital fund program exceeding $5,000,000.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,830,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 17,352,000
House allowance......................................... 17,352,000
Committee recommendation................................ 18,352,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
As a result of the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General
[IG] Act, the Secretary of the Treasury established the Office
of Inspector General [OIG] in 1989.
The OIG conducts and supervises audits, evaluations, and
investigations designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in
departmental programs and operations; and (2) keep the
Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of problems
and deficiencies in the administration of departmental programs
and operations. The audit function provides program audit,
contract audit and financial statement audit services. Contract
audits provide professional advice to agency contracting
officials on accounting and financial matters relative to
negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement
of contracts. Program audits review and audit all facets of
agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether
financial statements fairly present the agency's financial
condition and results of operations, the adequacy of accounting
controls, and compliance with laws and regulations. These
audits contribute significantly to improved financial
management by helping Treasury managers identify improvements
needed in their accounting and internal control systems. The
evaluations function reviews program performance and issues
critical to the mission of the Department, including assessing
the Department's implementation of the Government Performance
and Results Act [GPRA]. The investigative function provides for
the detection and investigation of improper and illegal
activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,352,000
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General.
This amount is $1,000,000 above the budget request and
$1,522,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The
Committee has provided additional funds above the budget
request to support additional audit work on the Department's
working capital fund and other management issues.
TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $131,953,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 136,469,000
House allowance......................................... 136,469,000
Committee recommendation................................ 136,469,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
[TIGTA] was established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-206). Funding was first appropriated
for this account in the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58).
TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to
assess the operations and programs of the Internal Revenue
Service [IRS] and related entities, the IRS Oversight Board and
the Office of Chief Counsel to (1) promote the economic,
efficient and effective administration of the Nation's tax laws
and to detect and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and
operations; and (2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and
other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these
programs and operations, and keep the Secretary and Congress
fully and currently informed of these issues and the progress
made in resolving them. TIGTA reviews existing and proposed
legislation and regulations relating to the programs and
operations of the IRS and related entities and makes
recommendations concerning the impact of such legislation and
regulations on the economy and efficiency in the administration
of programs and operations of the IRS and related entities. The
audit function provides program audit, limited contract audit
and financial audit services. Program audits review and audit
all facets of IRS and related entities in an effort to improve
IRS systems and operations, while ensuring fair and equitable
treatment of taxpayers. Contract audits focus on invoices/
vouchers submitted to the IRS to determine whether charges are
valid. The investigative function provides for the detection
and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving
IRS programs and operations and protects the IRS and related
entities against external attempts to corrupt or threaten their
employees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $136,469,000
for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This
amount is an increase of $4,516,000 above the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and the same as the budget request.
The Committee commends TIGTA for the audit work in
reviewing the IRS's response to Hurricane Katrina in the gulf
coast area. The Committee also commends TIGTA for reviewing the
IRS's business systems modernization program and other
information technology projects.
AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,723,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,
Public Law 107-42, established the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board. The Board may issue up to $10,000,000,000
in loan guarantees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not provide any appropriation funding,
as requested, for the Air Transportation Stabilization Program
for fiscal year 2007. Bill language, as requested, is included
that allows the ATSB to charge fees to a borrower. The Board
expects to negotiate repayment or remarketing of its remaining
loans by the end of fiscal year 2006 and will terminate its
activities in 2007.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $72,894,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 89,794,000
House allowance......................................... 84,066,000
Committee recommendation................................ 77,321,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], a bureau
within the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence, is the largest overt collector of
financial intelligence in the United States. FinCEN's mission
is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of
financial crime, including terrorist financing, money
laundering and other illicit finance. FinCEN accomplishes its
mission by administering the Bank Secrecy Act, a collection of
statutes that form the Nation's anti-money laundering/counter-
terrorist financing regulatory regime. As the delegated
administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is responsible
for the development and implementation of regulations, rules
and guidance issued under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN also
oversees the work of eight Federal agencies that have been
delegated responsibility to examine various sectors of the
financial industry for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act's
requirements. FinCEN is responsible for collecting,
maintaining, and disseminating the information reported by
financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act through a
Government-wide access service. In coordination with Treasury's
Office of Intelligence and Analysis, FinCEN analyzes this
financial information and other information and intelligence to
develop both strategic and tactical analytical products that
support law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory agencies.
FinCEN is the United States' Financial Intelligence Unit [FIU]
and a founding member of the Egmont Group of Financial
Intelligence Units. As the United States FIU, FinCEN routinely
shares information and cooperates with other FIUs around the
world to address the global problems of terrorist financing,
money laundering, and other illicit finance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $77,321,000 for the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN]. This amount is $4,427,000
above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $12,473,000 below
the budget request.
The Committee does not recommend $12,473,000 in additional
funds for the ``BSA Direct'' system due to the major failures
of the system as identified by the Government Accountability
Office [GAO] and the FinCEN Director. The Committee strongly
believes that based on the GAO's assessment, FinCEN will not be
in position in fiscal year 2007 to ensure it can spend
effectively and efficiently the additional funds requested for
BSA Direct. Further, the Committee understands that the IRS has
developed a new system that meets the needs of FinCEN and its
BSA users.
In the GAO's July 14, 2006 report on FinCEN's management of
BSA Direct (GAO-06-947R), the GAO found that FinCEN did not
always apply effective investment management processes to
oversee the BSA Direct Retrieval and Sharing project. As a
result, the GAO recommended that the Director of FinCEN direct
the Chief Information Officer [CIO] to develop a plan with
specific actions for improving the agency's capabilities for
overseeing the BSA Direct project. Further, the GAO noted that
the problems with BSA Direct indicate systemic problems with
FinCEN's management and oversight of IT projects. Accordingly,
the Committee directs FinCEN to develop a plan that addresses
the GAO's concerns in its July 14, 2006 report and to ensure
FinCEN has an executive level review process for IT projects.
The Committee directs the Director of FinCEN to submit a report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on these
matters by no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this act.
The Committee understands that FinCEN will require funds to
terminate the existing contract for BSA Direct, including costs
for the audit agency that will negotiate the termination costs.
Further, the Director of FinCEN will determine additional
financial requirements to achieve the BSA Direct Retrieval and
Sharing Component's long-term vision. The Committee supports
these efforts and looks forward in working with the Director in
meeting FinCEN's future needs.
Financial Management Service
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $233,881,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 233,654,000
House allowance......................................... 233,654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 233,654,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In 1940, the United States Department of the Treasury
established the Fiscal Service, which consisted of the Bureau
of Accounts, the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the Office of
the Treasurer. A 1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service
created the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, which
was formed from a merger of the Bureau of Accounts and most
functions of the Office of the Treasurer. In 1984, the Bureau
of Government Financial Operations was renamed the Financial
Management Service [FMS].
FMS implements payment policy and procedures for the
Federal program agencies, issues and distributes payments,
promotes the use of electronics in the payment process, and
assists agencies in converting payments from paper checks to
electronic funds transfer [EFT]. FMS also provides debt
collection operational services to client agencies and
implements collections policy, regulations, standards and
procedures for the Federal Government and assists agencies in
converting collections from paper to electronic media.
FMS also provides financial accounting, reporting, and
financing services to the Federal Government and the
Government's agents who participate in the payments and
collections process by generating a series of daily, monthly,
quarterly and annual Government-wide reports. FMS also works
directly with agencies to help reconcile reporting differences.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $233,654,000 for salaries and
expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request
and $227,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $90,215,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 63,964,000
House allowance......................................... 92,604,000
Committee recommendation................................ 92,604,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Homeland Security Act created the Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau [TTB] within the Department of the
Treasury and charged TTB with collecting revenue and protecting
the public.
TTB enforces the Federal laws and regulations relating to
alcohol and tobacco. Its responsibilities include maintaining a
sound revenue management and regulatory system that continues
to reduce the taxpayer burden, improve service, collect the
revenue due, prevent tax evasion and other criminal conduct,
and protecting the public and preventing consumer deception in
regulated commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $92,604,000 for TTB for fiscal
year 2007. This amount is an increase of $28,640,000 over the
budget request and an increase of $2,389,000 over the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level. The increase over the budget request
is due to the assumption of $28,640,000 in revenues from new
user fees. The new user fee legislative proposal, however, has
not been authorized and is not supported by the Committee.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] has been the
sole manufacturer of U.S. paper currency for almost 150 years.
The origin of the BEP is traced to an Act of Congress passed on
February 25, 1862, 12 Stat. 345, authorizing the Secretary of
the Treasury to issue a new currency--United States notes.
While this law was the cornerstone authority for the operations
of the engraving and printing division of the Treasury for many
years, it was not until an Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 100,
that the Congress first referred to this division as the
``Bureau of Engraving and Printing.'' The Bureau's status as a
distinct bureau within the Department of the Treasury was
solidified by section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat.
18, which placed all of the business of the BEP under the
immediate control of a director, subject to the direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury. The 1897 law is now codified in
31 U.S.C. 303.
The BEP designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve
notes, and other security documents issued by the Federal
Government. The BEP executes certain printings for various
territories administered by the United States, particularly
postage and revenue stamps.
The operations of the BEP are currently financed by means
of a revolving fund established in accordance with the
provisions of Public Law 656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181),
which requires the BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies
for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed.
The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital
equipment and provide for working capital needs.
No direct appropriation is required to cover the activities
of the BEP.
Bureau of the Public Debt
ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $175,154,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 177,789,000
House allowance......................................... 177,789,000
Committee recommendation................................ 177,789,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the
appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The
Public Debt Service took general charge debt operations
including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement,
which had been conducted by several independent divisions
within the Treasury. Acting under the authorization of the
Reorganization Act of 1939, the President created the Bureau of
the Public Debt, which was established as part of the Fiscal
Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30,
1940, (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings Bonds Division, a
separate organization, was made part of the Bureau.
This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all
public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S.
savings-type securities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$177,789,000 for the Bureau of the Public Debt for fiscal year
2007. This amount is an increase of $2,635,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $54,450,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 7,821,000
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes
investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments,
deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing
community development financial institutions [CDFIs], through
the CDFI program. CDFIs include community development banks,
credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and
microloan funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in
lending and investment for affordable housing, small business
and community development within underserved communities. The
CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program,
which provides a financial incentive to insured depository
institutions to undertake community development finance
activities. The CDFI Fund also administers the New Markets Tax
Credit Program, a program that provides an incentive to
investors in the form of a tax credit, which is expected to
stimulate private community and economic development
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the CDFI Fund,
which is $550,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$47,179,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends
that the entire program, not just the New Markets Tax Credit
program, remain at the Department of the Treasury as opposed to
the administration's proposal of moving the program to the
Department of Commerce under the Strengthening America's
Communities Initiative.
The Committee is again concerned about the proposed
reductions to CDFI and the respective programs within CDFI,
such as the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA]. These programs play an
important role in providing financial services to underserved
communities in both urban and rural communities across the
country. The Committee expects the BEA program to be funded at
no less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $3,000,000 for
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs
to benefit Native America, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian
communities in the coordination of development strategies,
increased access to equity investments, and loans for
development activities.
United States Mint
UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic
and investment products, and provides for security and asset
protection. Public Law 104-52 established the U.S. Mint Public
Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous
Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund,
and the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits
annual audited business-type financial statements to the
Secretary of the Treasury and to Congress in support of the
operations of the revolving fund.
The operations of the Mint are divided into two major
activities: Manufacturing and Sales (including circulating
coinage and numismatic and investment products); and
Protection. The Mint is credited with receipts from its
circulating coinage operations, equal to the full cost of
producing and distributing coins that are put into circulation,
including depreciation of the Mint's plant and equipment on the
basis of current replacement value. Those receipts pay for the
costs of the Mint's operations, which include the costs of
production and distribution. The difference between the face
value of the coins and these costs are profits, which is
deposited as seigniorage to the general fund. In fiscal year
2005, the Mint transferred $775,000,000 to the general fund.
Any seigniorage used to finance the Mint's capital acquisitions
is recorded as budget authority in the year that funds are
obligated for this purpose and as receipts over the life of the
asset.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a spending level of $30,200,000
for circulating coinage and protective service capital
investments for the Mint. This amount is an increase of
$3,432,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and is
equal to the budget request.
Internal Revenue Service
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] history dates back to
1862. In 1953, following a reorganization of its function, its
name became the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS administers
the Nation's tax laws and collects the revenue that funds most
of the Federal Government's operations and public services. The
IRS's mission is to provide taxpayers with quality service by
helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and
by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. The
IRS focuses its enforcement programs toward increasing
voluntary tax compliance by deterring taxpayers inclined to
evade their tax obligations while vigorously pursuing those who
violate the law. It deals directly with more Americans than any
other institution, public or private. In 2005, the IRS
collected over $2,000,000,000,000 in revenue and processed more
than 208 million tax returns. During the 2005 filing season,
more than half of all individual taxpayers (nearly 68 million)
filed electronically. Also, in 2005, the IRS provided
assistance more than 95 million times through toll-free
telephone lines, correspondence or visits to its more than 400
offices nationwide. An important focus for the IRS in recent
years has been to undertake a major modernization of its
systems, including expanding its Internet services, and
business operations to serve better taxpayers and enforce the
law.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,655,972,000 for the Internal
Revenue Service for fiscal year 2007. This is an increase of
$82,266,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$64,135,000 above the budget request.
New Appropriations Account Structure.--The Committee has
created a new appropriations account structure for fiscal year
2007. Under this structure, the IRS's activities are more
properly aligned to budget activities by creating new
``Taxpayer Services'', ``Enforcement'', and ``Operations
Support'' accounts in place of the old ``Processing,
Assistance, and Management'', ``Tax Law Enforcement'', and
``Information Systems'' accounts. The ``Business Systems
Modernization'' and ``Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration'' accounts are maintained. Further, the
Committee has broken out the ``IRS Oversight Board'' as a new
separate account.
The Committee developed the new account structure in
consultation with the Department of the Treasury, the IRS, and
the House Committee on Appropriations. The Committee has
provided the IRS with some administrative flexibility in
transitioning to the new account structure by allowing the IRS
to transfer funds among the taxpayer services, enforcement, and
operations support accounts. This new administrative
flexibility provided as an administrative provision.
Tax Gap.--The IRS updated its results of a 3-year study on
the difference between what taxpayers are supposed to pay and
what they actually do pay, the so-called ``tax gap.'' The IRS
found that for tax year 2001, about 84 percent of owed taxes
were paid voluntarily and timely. However, a significant number
of taxpayers do not comply with the Tax Code resulting in an
estimated gross tax gap of $345,000,000,000. The IRS estimates
that after enforcement and other late payments are factored
into the gross tax gap, the net tax gap is about
$290,000,000,000. The most current estimate of the tax gap
remains largely unchanged from the IRS's initial update
conducted last year and has remained relatively stable for the
past three decades based on previous IRS studies. The accuracy
of the tax gap, however, is uncertain given the use of outdated
information and questionable methodology. Some experts,
including the GAO and TIGTA, believe that the tax gap may
actually be higher than estimated by the IRS. The Committee
strongly believes that the IRS must and can reduce the tax gap
if the IRS is given additional resources and is able to improve
its operational capabilities (most notably through the Business
Systems Modernization program).
To reduce the tax gap, the IRS's budget request has set a
goal of increasing the voluntary compliance rate from a current
estimate of about 83.7 percent to 85 percent by 2009. However,
the budget request does not include a strategic plan to achieve
this goal. To reduce the tax gap, experts recommend a number of
approaches, such as: improving information reporting, improving
taxpayer services, increasing research on noncompliance,
improving the partnership between the IRS and the tax
administration community, and leveraging technology to improve
IRS's systems. The Committee supports all of these approaches
and believes that the administration must develop a detailed
business plan on how it will reduce the tax gap. Accordingly,
the Committee has included an administrative provision that
requires the IRS to develop a detailed, strategic plan that
demonstrates how it will achieve and how it will measure the
voluntary compliance goal of 85 percent by 2009.
Operating Plan and Notification.--In addition to the normal
operating plan requirements detailed in the introduction in
this report, the Committee directs the IRS to include details
on any planned reorganization, job reductions or increases to
offices or activities within the agency, and modifications to
any service or enforcement activity. Some past examples that
would qualify under this directive include: the Modernization
and Information Technology Systems [MITS] reorganization and
the proposed closure of taxpayer assistance centers. The
Committee also directs the IRS to obtain the approval of the
IRS Oversight Board prior to submitting its operating plan to
the Committee. Further, the IRS should promptly notify the
Committee and the IRS Oversight Board if there are any
substantial changes of these plans.
The Committee continues to remain concerned about any
efforts to reduce significantly taxpayer services. Therefore,
the Committee directs that should the IRS propose further
reductions in taxpayer service, such reductions must be
consistent with the budget justification, operating plan, and
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint.
Privacy Regulations.--The Committee notes that the
authorizing committee has approved legislation (S. 832) that
addresses the troubling aspects of the use and disclosure of
taxpayer information by return preparers for non-tax purposes
and offshore disclosures. The Committee directs the IRS to be
strictly attentive to this legislation in promulgating the
final regulation relating to section 7216 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
IRS Staffing Plans.--The Committee continues to support
adequate staffing levels for effective tax administration and
supports the staffing plans for the Internal Revenue Service
facilities in the communities of Martinsburg and Beckley, West
Virginia. Therefore, the Committee urges the IRS, within the
constraints of the fiscal year 2007 funding levels, to make no
staffing reductions at the Martinsburg National Computing
Center and the programmed level at the Finance Center in
Beckley, West Virginia. Further, the Committee directs the IRS
to provide an annual report to the Committee on its efforts to
protect and increase staffing levels at the Martinsburg and
Beckley IRS facilities.
Taxpayer Services in Alaska and Hawaii.--Given the remote
distance of Alaska and Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and the
difficulty experienced by Alaska and Hawaii taxpayers in
receiving needed tax assistance by the national toll-free line,
it is imperative that the Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in
each of these States is fully staffed and capable of resolving
taxpayer problems of the most complex nature. The Committee
directs the Internal Revenue Service to continue to staff each
Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in each of these States with a
Collection Technical Advisor and an Examination Technical
Advisor in addition to the current complement of office staff.
TAXPAYER SERVICES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,142,275,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,079,151,000
House allowance......................................... 2,059,151,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,110,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Taxpayer Services appropriation provides for taxpayer
services, including forms and publications; processing tax
returns and related documents; filing and account services;
taxpayer advocacy services; and assisting taxpayers to
understand their tax obligations, correctly file their returns,
and pay taxes due in a timely manner.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,110,000,000 for Taxpayer
Services, which is $32,275,000 below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and $30,849,000 above the budget request. Bill
language is included providing not less than $4,500,000 for the
tax counseling for the elderly program and not less than
$9,000,000 for low-income taxpayer clinic grants.
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint.--In response to the
Committee's directive in the fiscal year 2006 Treasury
Appropriations Act, the IRS, in consultation with the IRS
Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, began
developing a ``Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint'' to develop a 5-
year strategic plan on taxpayer services. As directed by the
Committee, the IRS is reviewing its current portfolio of
taxpayer services and exploring other types of services to meet
the needs of taxpayers. Further, this plan will detail how it
plans to meet the service needs on a geographic basis (by State
and major metropolitan area), including any proposals to
realign existing resources to improve taxpayer access to
services, and address how the plan will improve taxpayer
service based on reliable data on taxpayer service needs. The
plan will also address efforts to expand efforts to partner
with State and local governments and private entities to
improve taxpayer services. The Committee commends the IRS, the
IRS Oversight Board, and the National Taxpayer Advocate for
their time and efforts on the Blueprint. Further, the Committee
appreciates the efforts to conduct research on taxpayer needs
and taxpayer service performance.
The Committee understands that the Blueprint may not be
completed in time to be used as part of the development of the
fiscal year 2008 budget request. However, the Committee
strongly believes that the Blueprint should be incorporated in
subsequent budget requests.
E-Filing.--The Committee is disappointed with the IRS's
performance in increasing the number of tax filers who submit
their returns electronically and without additional cost. Most
experts, including the IRS Oversight Board, believe that the
IRS will not meet its congressionally mandated goal of having
80 percent of tax returns filed electronically by 2007.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the IRS, in consultation
with stakeholders, such as the National Taxpayer Advocate, to
develop a detailed strategic plan to meet the 80 percent e-File
goal. This plan should be submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by no later than June 4, 2007.
Research.--The Committee believes that the IRS will provide
better taxpayer service, resulting in improved compliance, if
taxpayer behavior is better understood and applied research is
integrated into the development of taxpayer service and
enforcement initiatives. Toward that end, the Committee directs
the National Taxpayer Advocate, in consultation with IRS Office
of Research, to report to the Appropriations Committees of the
House and Senate by September 30, 2007, on activities that tax
administrators in other nations undertake to understand
taxpayer behavior. The report shall also make recommendations
for the establishment of a cognitive learning and applied
research laboratory. In addition, the report should identify
innovative methods of understanding taxpayer behavior,
including the use of agent-based computer simulations, and
recommend whether the establishment of a cognitive learning
laboratory would improve tax administration.
ENFORCEMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,701,970,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,797,126,000
House allowance......................................... 4,757,126,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,797,126,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination
of tax returns, both domestic and international; the
administrative and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of
examination findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee
pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations
seeking tax-exempt status; examining tax returns of exempt
organizations; enforcing statutes relating to detection and
investigation of criminal violations of the internal revenue
laws; identifying under reporting of tax obligations; securing
unfiled tax returns; and collecting unpaid accounts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$4,797,126,000 for enforcement activities for fiscal year 2007.
This amount is $95,156,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level. Bill language is included to transfer not less than
$55,584,000 to the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
[ICDE] program and to transfer up to $10,000,000 from
enforcement to the Operations Support account to support the
ICDE program.
National Research Program.--The Committee strongly supports
the work of the National Research Program [NRP] to increase
understanding on the tax gap. While the IRS's NRP has done a
commendable job in updating the tax gap estimates, there remain
significant gaps in the gap. The IRS and others have expressed
concerns with the certainty of the overall tax gap estimate in
part because some areas of the estimate rely on old data (from
the 1970s and 1980s) and it has no estimates for other areas of
the tax gap. GAO, TIGTA, the National Taxpayer Advocate, and
the IRS Oversight Board also have all recommended greater and
more frequent data collection and studies of the tax gap. The
Committee agrees with this recommendation. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the IRS to submit a detailed research plan
that will address the shortfalls in the NRP. The plan should
include the use of a rolling sample, which was recommended by
the IRS Oversight Board and GAO that covers all types of tax
returns. Under this approach, one-fifth of the sample could be
collected every year. The plan should include cost estimates of
implementing the plan. The plan should be developed in
consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate and approved
by the IRS Oversight Board prior to its submission to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by no later than March
12, 2007. Finally, to cover the costs of implementing the plan,
the Committee encourages the IRS to request the use of
unobligated funds as part of the reprogramming authority
provided under this act.
The Committee believes that an understanding of the causes
of inadvertent noncompliance and the role of preparers in
facilitating both inadvertent and intentional noncompliance
will improve tax administration and should inform IRS's
allocation of resources. Thus, in administering its NRP for
fiscal year 2007, the Committee directs the IRS to collect
information on the causes of inadvertent noncompliance, the
type of return preparation method (self, volunteer, or paid
preparer), and whether the taxpayer was represented during the
examination. The Committee directs the National Taxpayer
Advocate to assist with this effort.
Misclassification of Contractors.--The Committee is
concerned with the misclassification of workers as independent
contractors, who are filed under IRS form 1099. Many of these
workers should be correctly classified as employees and filed
under W-2 forms. This misclassification leads to the
underreporting of self-employment taxes, which the IRS
estimates accounts for $148,000,000,000 per year and 43 percent
of the gross tax gap. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges
the IRS to provide increased tax enforcement in industries
where misclassification of employees is widespread.
OPERATIONS SUPPORT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,467,443,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,488,404,000
House allowance......................................... 3,459,152,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,487,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Operations Support appropriation provides for overall
planning and direction of the IRS including shared service
support related to facilities services, rent payments,
printing, postage, and security; other support functions that
are considered overhead but essential to the successful
operation of IRS programs including resources for headquarters
management activities, including IRS-wide support for strategic
planning, communications and liaison, finance, human resources,
EEO and diversity; research and statistics of income; and
necessary expenses for information systems and
telecommunication support, including developmental information
systems and operational information systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,487,000,000 for Operations
Support for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $19,557,000 above
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,404,000 below the
budget request. Bill language is included allowing $75,000,000
of these funds to remain available until September 30, 2009; up
to $1,000,000 for research activities; and $50,000 for official
reception and representation. The Committee has provided
additional reception and representation funds due to the IRS's
growing role in international tax administration. These funds
will be used to host meetings with international tax
organizations such as the Joint International Tax Shelter
Information Centre, Inter-American Center for Tax
Administrators, and others.
IT Management and Oversight.--The IRS has made significant
strides in improving the management and oversight of its
business systems modernization [BSM] program. Unfortunately,
the IRS has not adequately addressed major systemic problems
with its non-BSM portfolio of information technology projects
as demonstrated by recent failures during the past filing
season. TIGTA has identified problems in several areas of IT
management and oversight including, but not limited to, such
areas as: classification of investment projects, oversight and
governance structure, risk management, contingency planning,
and contractor performance and accountability. Further, it
appears that the Department of the Treasury and the Office of
Management and Budget have not exercised proper oversight for
the business cases (OMB Circular A-11 Exhibit 300) used to
justify the funding of the IRS's IT projects.
To the IRS's credit, it has begun addressing some of its IT
problems through a reorganization of the Modernization and
Information Technology Services [MITS] organization that began
earlier this year. Nevertheless, the Committee remains troubled
by the IT management and oversight problems at the IRS, as
demonstrated by the failures with the Electronic Fraud
Detection System, and it expects better performance to ensure
it can support its tax administration activities. Accordingly,
the Committee directs the IRS to review its entire non-BSM IT
portfolio (regardless of tier classification) and make any
changes as necessary to ensure that each project has (1) been
properly classified for investment decision and management
purposes, (2) the appropriate governance structure in place
(such as an executive steering committee), (3) a risk
management plan, (4) a contingency plan in case of breakdowns
or failures in scheduled deliverables, (5) adequate provisions
in the contracts to ensure penalties and repayment to the
agency if performance is not met, (6) adequate contractor
staffing and management in place to fulfill the contract terms
and deliverables, and (7) been certified by the head of the
relevant IRS business unit that the project is deemed necessary
for its operations and meets its requirements. The Committee
also directs the Chief Information Officer to certify that this
review has been completed and submits such certification to the
IRS Oversight Board, the Department of the Treasury, the Office
of Management and Budget, the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the
Senate Finance Committee by no later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this act. This certification should be
accompanied by a report on every individual IT project
reviewed, a list of projects considered to be high risk, and
any actions being taken to address problems identified by this
review. Last, the Committee directs the IRS to provide monthly
briefings to the IRS Oversight Board and TIGTA on the status of
its IT portfolio and to report immediately on any project that
has experienced significant cost variances or milestone
delivery date slippages.
Modernization Vision and Strategy.--The Committee highly
commends the IRS for developing a new vision and strategy plan
for IT modernization. This plan was a joint effort between the
MITS organization and the IRS business units to develop a
comprehensive business strategy for the IRS's IT needs. The
Committee recommends that the plan be further refined to
include a finer level of detail, and specifically, to include
milestones and out-year cost estimates.
BSA Direct.--The Committee appreciates the IRS's assistance
provided to FinCEN in preventing any disruption in information
technology service in administering BSA filing data activities
by allowing FinCEN to use the IRS's WebCBRS system. The
Committee directs the IRS to continue providing such assistance
and to coordinate with FinCEN on future BSA filing data needs.
BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $242,010,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 212,310,000
House allowance......................................... 197,060,000
Committee recommendation................................ 245,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides for revamping business practices and
acquiring new technology. The agency is using a formal
methodology to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its
portfolio of business systems modernization investments. This
methodology is designed to enforce a documented, repeatable,
and measurable process for managing investments throughout
their life cycle. The process is reviewed by the Government
Accountability Office on a regular basis as part of the
submission requirements for expenditure plans to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan
approval process prior to the use of appropriated funds
continues for fiscal year 2007.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $245,000,000 for Business Systems
Modernization [BSM] for fiscal year 2007. This amount is
$32,690,000 above the budget request and $2,990,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Bill language is included
requiring an expenditure plan for these funds. Under the new
appropriations account structure, the BSM account has been
modified to include funding for IRS staffing associated with
direct management of the BSM program.
The Committee continues to believe that BSM is the IRS's
highest management and administrative priority that will
require management's focus and attention for several years. To
the IRS's credit, the program has made steady progress over the
past 2 years. Unfortunately, the budget request cuts BSM by
$29,700,000 or 15.2 percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level. The Committee is troubled by the proposed cut since it
will slow the momentum of the BSM's progress in modernizing
IRS's antiquated tax administration and financial systems. GAO
noted that the proposed funding level would likely affect the
IRS's ability to deliver the functionality planned for the
fiscal year and could result in project delays and/or scope
reductions. Further, this could in turn impact the long-term
pace and cost of modernizing IRS tax systems and of ultimately
improving taxpayer service and strengthening enforcement.
Based on the views of the GAO and the IRS Oversight Board,
the Committee has included an additional $32,690,000 for the
BSM program. The Committee directs that these additional funds
be used for the modernized e-File program based on the
recommendation of the IRS Oversight Board.
HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $20,008,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 14,846,000
House allowance......................................... 14,846,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,846,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides operating funds to administer
the advance payment feature of a new Trade Adjustment
Assistance health insurance tax credit program to assist
dislocated workers with their health insurance premiums. The
tax credit program was enacted by the Trade Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-210) and became effective in August 2003.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $14,846,000 for the Health Insurance Tax Credit
Administration in fiscal year 2007. This amount is $5,162,000
below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
IRS OVERSIGHT BOARD
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,500,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,500,000
House allowance......................................... 1,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The IRS Oversight Board was established by the Congress
under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 [RRA]. Its
legislatively-mandated mission is to oversee the IRS in its
administration, management, conduct, direction, and supervision
of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.
The Board is composed of nine members, appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. RRA provided the Board
with specific responsibilities to review and approve strategic
and performance plans; review operational functions; review the
selection, evaluation, and compensation of senior executives;
and review and approve the budget request of the IRS.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the IRS Oversight
Board for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $500,000 above the
budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. These
additional funds are provided to increase the Board's oversight
of IRS operations, primarily in the area of information
technology.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The Committee has included five administrative provisions
carried in prior appropriations acts and six new administrative
provisions. The administrative provisions are as follows:
Section 201 continues a provision allowing the IRS to
transfer up to 5 percent of any appropriation made available to
the Agency in fiscal year 2007 to any other IRS account, with
the exception of the Enforcement account, which is limited to 3
percent. The IRS is directed to follow the Committee's
reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this report.
Section 202 continues a provision maintaining a training
program in taxpayers' rights and cross-cultural relations.
Section 203 continues a provision requiring the IRS to
institute and enforce policies and procedures, which will
safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Section 204 continues a provision directing that funds
shall be available for improved facilities and increased
manpower to support a 1-800 help line service for taxpayers.
Section 205 continues a provision designating not less than
$170,000,000 for the Taxpayer Advocate Service [TAS]. Further,
this amount does not include the normal overhead expenses that
IRS provides outside of the TAS account. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the IRS to continue providing overhead
support from accounts outside of TAS.
Section 206 includes a new provision requiring the IRS to
submit its fiscal year 2008 budget justification in the same
format provided under this act.
Section 207 is a new provision that allows the IRS to
transfer up to $10,000,000 from IRS appropriations accounts to
manage the Earned Income Tax Credit program.
Section 208 is a new provision that allows the IRS to
transfer up to $35,000,000 from the Taxpayer Services or
Enforcement accounts to the Operations Support account for
purposes of enhancing information technology systems that
support taxpayer service and enforcement activities.
Section 209 is a new provision that establishes new IRS
appropriations accounts as Taxpayer Services, Enforcement, and
Operations Support.
Section 210 is a new provision that allows the IRS to
transfer funds among its new accounts to implement the new
account structure in this act.
Section 211 is a new provision that requires the IRS to
develop a tax gap strategic plan that details the approaches it
will use to achieve a voluntary compliance rate of 85 percent
in 2009. This goal was established by the administration in its
fiscal year 2007 budget justifications.
Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The Committee includes nine administrative provisions
carried over from prior appropriations acts and two new
administrative provisions. The administrative provisions are as
follows:
Section 212 authorizes certain basic services within the
Treasury Department in fiscal year 2007, including purchase of
uniforms; maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of
insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign
countries; and contracts with the Department of State for
health and medical services to employees and their dependents
serving in foreign countries.
Section 213 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between
Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Financial
Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the
Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances.
Section 214 authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration under certain circumstances.
Section 215 requires the purchase of law enforcement
vehicles be consistent with Departmental vehicle management
principles.
Section 216 prohibits the Department of the Treasury and
the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from redesigning the $1
Federal Reserve Note.
Section 217 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
transfer funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management
Service, to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover the
costs of debt collection. Such amounts shall be reimbursed to
the Salaries and Expenses account from debt collections
received in the Debt Collection Fund.
Section 218 amends section 122 of Public Law 105-119 (5
U.S.C. 3104 note), by striking ``8 years'' and inserting ``9
years''.
Section 219 requires prior approval for the construction
and operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
Section 220 prohibits the merger of the United States Mint
and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without prior approval
of the committees of jurisdiction.
Section 221 is a new provision that authorizes the
Department's intelligence activities. This language was
included at the request of the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Section 222 is a new provision that requires the Department
to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations regarding all uncommitted, unobligated,
unexpended, and excess funds in each program and activity and
requires the Department to submit additional, updated budget
information to these Committees upon request.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $33,593,827,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 34,118,007,000
House allowance......................................... 35,297,266,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,587,572,000
program description
The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2007 an
appropriation of $36,587,572,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $2,993,745,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level and $2,469,565,000 above the budget
request.
TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006 \1\................................ $15,417,919,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 15,920,000,000
House allowance \1\..................................... 15,846,400,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 15,920,000,000
\1\ Include an advance appropriation of some $4,200,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal
housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to
over 2 million families. Further, it funds incremental vouchers
to assist non-elderly disabled families, to provide vouchers
for tenants that live in projects where the owner of the
project has decided to leave the section 8 program, or for
replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory
(tenant protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs,
eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted
income for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for
the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some
other payment standard. This account also provides funding for
the Contract Administrator program, Family Self-Sufficiency
[FSS] and the Family Unification program. Under FSS, families
receive job training and employment that should lead to a
decrease in their dependency on welfare programs and move
towards economic self-sufficiency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$15,920,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, including $4,200,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2007. These funds are $502,081,000 above the fiscal year 2006
level. Of these amounts, the Committee has allocated
$14,436,200,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8
contracts; $149,300,000 for section 8 preservation contracts
through tenant protections; $47,500,000 for family self-
sufficiency contracts; $1,271,100,000 for administrative fees;
up to $10,000,000 for the Family Unification program that
provides vouchers to families for whom the lack of adequate
housing is a primary factor in the separation, or the threat of
imminent separation, of children from their families, and also
provides vouchers to youths 18 to 21 years old who left foster
care at age 16 or older and lack adequate housing; and
$5,900,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund.
This account provides funding for section 8 tenant-based
housing programs based on a budget-based approach that seeks to
ensure funding for vouchers in use while permitting public
housing agencies [PHAs] to fund vouchers up to the authorized
level. This account funds housing for over 2 million families.
Moreover, this level of funding will ensure that PHAs have
adequate funds for all vouchers-in-use. The Committee expects
that many PHAs will be able to pay the cost of all vouchers up
to the legal authorized level.
In addition, the account funds incremental vouchers to
assist non-elderly disabled families, vouchers for tenants that
live in projects where the owner of the project has decided to
opt-out of the section 8 project-based program, or for the
replacement of other units lost from the assisted housing
inventory. The Committee remains concerned over the increased
costs of section 8 rents over the last few years and what these
costs could mean to this program in the future expecially in
consideration of increasing utility costs. Nevertheless, the
Committee believes that many PHAs have not taken prudent steps
in reducing the energy costs associated with public housing.
High costs of fuel are only one component related to high
energy bills.
The Committee believes that the budget-based approach will
ensure a more rigorous rent policy and fiscally responsible
approach. As a result, the Committee directs HUD to report
semi-annually on rent increases for affordable, low-income
housing throughout the Nation, including the cost to the
Government for its failure to promote or implement a policy for
developing low-income housing, especially in tight rental
housing markets. The Committee also directs HUD to report
annually, beginning no later than June 30, 2007 on the
effectiveness of this budget-based approach to vouchers,
including the extent to which available housing units are lost
because of new cost adjustments as well as the impact of this
policy on extremely low-income families (those at or below 30
percent of median income for an area).
The Committee has also broadened the base for determining
the funding for section 8 vouchers for each PHA by eliminating
the 3 month May through July snapshot of voucher costs and
replacing it with the most recent 12 month period as a method
for providing accurate and reliable data. The legislation also
includes up to $100,000,000 for HUD to award funds to PHAs that
were unfairly disadvantaged from excessive costs due to
portability over the last year as well as other anomolies such
as high utility costs. This funding should eliminate the need
for any central fund.
The Committee includes $149,300,000 for tenant protection
assistance. This is the same as the budget request and
$28,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 level.
The Committee remains concerned that HUD is not committed
to maintaining section 8 project-based housing and may be
encouraging owners to opt out of the program. This would be a
tremendous mistake since affordable housing needs are growing
while the stock of affordable low-income housing is shrinking.
HUD is directed to report no later than June 30, 2007 on the
status of HUD's efforts to retain section 8 project-based
housing, including a 5-year analysis of units lost and
retained, by year, State, and locality. HUD is also directed to
provide an analysis of all efforts made by HUD to preserve low-
income section 8 units. The Committee also directs GAO to again
assess HUD's efforts and success in preserving HUD-assisted
low-income housing, especially section 8 project-based housing,
including recommendations on how better to preserve this
housing. The Committee expects an annual report on this issue.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, to conduct a study of the Rental Vouchers for Veterans
Affairs Supported Housing Program authorized under title 42
United States Code section 1437f(o)(19) and provide an overview
of the program including the total number of vouchers, average
cost, locations receiving vouchers, selection procedure and the
cost of maintaining such vouchers. The Secretary shall submit
such report to the Committees on Appropriation not later than
120 days after the enactment of this act.
The Committee recommends $1,271,100,000 for administrative
fees for PHAs. These funds are to be allocated on a formula
tied to units under lease. These funds are intended to ensure
the success of the section 8 voucher program, but can be used
to provide related low-income housing, including development
costs.
The Committee provides $47,500,000 for Family Self-
Sufficiency coordinators. These funds are designed to promote
self-sufficiency by moving from welfare to work.
The Committee includes $5,900,000 to transfer to HUD's
Working Capital Fund which is needed for HUD to complete an
effective IT system to track HUD funding.
HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND
(RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... -$2,050,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -2,000,000,000
House allowance......................................... -2,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -2,000,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,000,000,000,
the same as the budget request and $50,000,000 less than the
fiscal year 2006 rescission level. The administration has been
unable to demonstrate there are adequate ``excess'' section 8
funds available for rescission, which has been the source for
prior year rescissions. Instead, the administration appears
likely to rescind funds from congressional priority programs
such as the Homeless Assistance programs, HOME, HOPE VI section
202 housing for elderly and section 811 Housing for Persons
with Disabilities. As a result, because both HUD and OMB have
recommended this rescission from section 8 funds, to the extent
there are inadequate ``excess'' section 8 funding for the
rescission, the next source of rescission funding is to be
obtained, in part, first from an amount equal to 10 percent of
HUD salaries and expenses and an amount equal to 10 percent of
OMB funding. Only after this source of funds are exhausted can
unobligated funds from other HUD programs be used to satisfy
this rescission.
PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,037,417,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,675,700,000
House allowance......................................... 5,475,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,675,700,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental
subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific
housing unit as opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient
to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts
in this account include funding for the renewal of expiring 8
project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides a total of $5,675,700,000 for the
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which up to
$145,500,000 is for the cost of contract administrators,
$3,960,000 is for the Working Capital Fund. This funding is
equal to the budget request and $635,937,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 level. As discussed in the Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance account, GAO is directed to annually assess the
status of HUD's efforts to preserve assisted housing.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,438,964,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,178,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,208,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,460,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation and homeownership activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,460,000,000
for the public housing capital fund, which is $282,000,000
above the budget request and $21,036,000 above the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
Of the amount made available under this section, up to
$30,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing. Per the budget request, $7,920,000 is available from
this account to pay for the costs of administrative and
judicial receiverships and $14,850,000 shall be transferred to
the Working Capital Fund.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $19,800,000 for
emergency capital needs.
The bill includes up to $15,345,000 to support the ongoing
financial and physical assessment activities at the Real Estate
Assessment Center [REAC].
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,564,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,564,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,564,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,660,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except
Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million
units under management in order to augment rent payments by
residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet
reasonable operating costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,660,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is $96,000,000
above the fiscal year 2006 level and $96,000,000 more than the
budget request. Additional funds have been included in
anticipation of high utility costs.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal
year 2004 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of
operating funds to pay for the operating expenses for a prior
fiscal year.
REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $99,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public
housing'' [HOPE VI] account makes awards to public housing
authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or
failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites
upon which these developments exist. This is a focused effort
to eliminate public housing which was, in many cases, poorly
located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such
unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and
difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, which is $100,000,000 above the
budget request and $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level.
The administration also sought to eliminate this program by
rescinding $99,000,000 of the fiscal year 2006 funding. The
Committee urges the Department to reconsider the elimination of
the HOPE VI program, and consider a restructured HOPE VI
program that is more efficient, cost effective and still
capable of leveraging other funds for rebuilding often
distressed communities in which these ``HOPE VI'' projects are
located.
This is an important program that has revitalized many
distressed properties and has anchored revitalization
activities for the many communities in which these properties
are located. The Committee acknowledges that many of the funds
appropriated for this program have yet to be expended as
projects are delayed and remain in the pipeline due to the
complexities related to the funding of these types of projects
as well as local controversies between interested local
parties. Nevertheless, the program has proven to be very
successful in transforming the lives of the assisted families
and in rebuilding often distressed communities.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $623,700,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 625,680,000
House allowance......................................... 625,680,000
Committee recommendation................................ 625,680,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds the native American housing block grants
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
[NAHASDA]. This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $625,680,000 for the Native
American Housing Block Grant, of which $1,980,000 is set aside
for a credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee
Program. The Committee recommendation is the same as the budget
request and $1,980,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The Committee continues to believe that training and
technical assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared,
with $2,000,000 to be administered by the National American
Indian Housing Council [NAIHC] and $3,465,000 by HUD in support
of the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise,
training and technical assistance in the training, oversight,
and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance.
The Committee is concerned that HUD has attempted to micro
manage many activities of the NAIHC to the detriment of NAIHC,
the tribes, and the program. These policies have also led to
unacceptable levels of carryover. The Committee expects HUD to
resolve these issues while ensuring NAIHC is able to make
effective and meaningful contributions to tribal heads.
The Committee continues to be very concerned with both the
policy and method by which HUD revised the eligibility
requirements under which HUD allocates the Native American
Housing Assistance Block Grant [NAHASDA]. On April 19, 2004,
HUD issued its NAHASDA funding for fiscal year 2004 by using
``multi-race'' census data for making funding allocations as
opposed to funding tribes based on members of a ``single
race''. While this may be a legitimate approach, HUD's
allocation is based on census date that relies on self-
certification. Equally troubling is the fact that HUD failed to
use ``notice and comment'' rulemaking in making such a
substantial policy change. This concern is reinforced by the
fact that HUD was unable to reach a consensus among tribal
groups on this policy change. Consequently, while the Committee
is not looking to challenge the policy change at this time, the
Committee does direct HUD to reassess this decision through
notice and comment rulemaking. The Committee also directs HUD
to establish oversight procedures to ensure that tribal members
are qualified for purposes of the NAHASDA tribal funding
allocations.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,727,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,940,000
House allowance......................................... 8,815,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,815,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to State of Hawaiian Home Lands for housing and housing
related assistance to develop, maintain, and operate affordable
housing for eligible low income Native Hawaiian families.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,815,000 for this program which
is $88,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$2,875,000 more than the budget request. Of the amount
provided, $299,211 shall be for training and technical
assistance activities.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................. $3,960,000 $116,276,000
Budget estimate, 2007................. 5,940,000 251,000,000
House allowance....................... 3,960,000 116,276,000
Committee recommendation.............. 5,940,000 251,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,940,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $251,000,000. This is
$1,980,000 more than both the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and the same as the budget request.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.................. $891,000 $35,714,000
Budget estimate, 2007................. 1,010,000 43,000,000
House allowance....................... 1,010,000 43,000,000
Committee recommendation.............. 1,010,000 43,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing
finance because of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,010,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $43,000,000. The subsidy
level is $119,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level and the
same as the budget request.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $286,110,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 300,100,000
House allowance......................................... 300,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 295,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Program is designed to provide States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families.
Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are
distributed by formula to qualifying States and metropolitan
areas on the basis of the number and incidence of AIDS cases
reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March
31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The remaining
10 percent of funds are distributed through a national
competition.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $295,000,000
for this program, which is $8,890,000 more than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level and $5,100,000 below the budget request. The
Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a manner
that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent these
programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with
AIDS.
OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $16,830,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive
approach to rural housing and rural economic development
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State and
local economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural
community development corporations to pursue strategies
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Office of
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2007 to
support housing and economic development in rural communities
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $3,170,000
above the fiscal year 2006 level and $20,000,000 above the
budget request.
The Committee does not accept the administration's
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate
appropriations.
HUD is directed to administer this program according to
existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and
comment rulemaking.
community development fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,177,800,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,032,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,215,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,215,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,215,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2007. This is
an increase of $1,183,000,000 above the budget request for
fiscal year 2007 and $37,200,000 over the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The administration has proposed to reform and dramatically
reduce funding for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]
program in fiscal year 2007 by $1,183,000,000 or 28 percent
from the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee recognizes that
adequately funding the CDBG program is essential for HUD to
meet its core mission in addressing State and local community
needs for low and moderate income residents across this Nation.
While some reforms may be warranted, the reforms presented by
the administration are very controversial.
The Committee has not included funding for Youthbuild. The
fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to transfer Youthbuild from
HUD to the Department of Labor. The Committee recognizes that
authorizing language to initiate the transfer is currently
under consideration by Congress and will continue to work with
the Department and interested parties to ensure that this
program will not expire for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee also funds the Economic Development
Initiative at $250,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program at $30,000,000.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:
$750,000 for the city of Craig, Alaska to acquire the Ward
Cove Cannery Property in the city of Craig;
$250,000 for the Rural Alaska Community Action Program in
Anchorage, Alaska for improvements to Head Start and Early Head
Start facilities in rural communities in Alaska;
$2,500,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium in Ketchikan,
Alaska for the construction of the aquarium;
$1,000,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in
Nome, Alaska for Cape Nome Quarry upgrades;
$1,000,000 for the city of Phenix City, Alabama for the
redevelopment of downtown and riverfront;
$400,000 for the city of Eutaw, Alabama for the
revitalization of the Greene County Courthouse Square;
$400,000 for the Cleburne County Economic and Industrial
Authority, Alabama, for the development of Industrial Park;
$500,000 for Troy University, Alabama for the establishment
of the Center for International Business and Economic
Development;
$500,000 for the city of Abbeville, Alabama for a downtown
revitalization project;
$200,000 for the Tannehill Ironworks Historical State Park,
Alabama for science and technology enhancements;
$500,000 for the Calhoun County Commission, Alabama for
economic development of Old Fort McClellan;
$300,000 to the Black Warrior and Cahaba Rivers Land Trust
to purchase multi-acre tract of land along Red Mountain in
Jefferson County, Alabama;
$250,000 to the Blount County Commission for updates,
improvements, and the expansion of existing outdoor
recreational facilities at Rickwood Caverns State Park;
$200,000 to the Historic Blakeley State Park for
infrastructure development and improvements to Blakeley State
Park;
$250,000 to the Clark County Commission to identify and
prioritize infrastructure needs including acquisition of
property for industrial parks, development of roads, and rail
spurs;
$500,000 for Miami Dade College in Miami-Dade County,
Florida for the design and construction of the Cuban American
Historical Museum at the Miami Dade College Freedom Tower;
$300,000 for the Tampa Metropolitan Area YMCA in Tampa,
Florida for construction of transitional housing for foster
youth;
$200,000 for the city of Sarasota, Florida for the planning
and construction of the Robert L. Taylor Community Center;
$800,000 for the Cobb Performing Arts Centre, Georgia for
the Cobb Performing Arts Centre construction in Cobb County,
Georgia;
$200,000 for the city of Chickamauga, Georgia, for the
acquisiton of the Gordon Lee Mansion, in Walker County,
Georgia;
$200,000 city of Moultrie, Georgia for the creation of the
Moultrie-Community Multi-Purpose Facility;
$200,000 Morehouse School of Medicine, for the Atlanta
West-End Community Revitalization Initiative, Atlanta, Georgia;
$200,000 Cusseta-Chattahoochee County, Georgia for downtown
revitalization in Cusseta-Chattahoochee County;
$200,000 Paulding County, Georgia, for industrial park site
preparation for Paulding County Airport and BusinessTechnology
Park;
$200,000 Henry County, Georgia for the creation of a
Veterans Wall of Honor in Henry County;
$500,000 for the city of Storm Lake, Iowa for the
destination park in Storm Lake;
$380,000 for the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo, Iowa
for renovations of facilities;
$220,000 for the city of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa for
redevelopment activities;
$200,000 for the city of Sioux City, Iowa for the
demolition of the former swift plant in the yards in Sioux
City;
$200,000 for the city of Waterloo, Iowa for the demolition
of the Chamberlain Manufacturing facility in Waterloo;
$1,000,000 for the city of Caldwell, Idaho for downtown
revitalization;
$500,000 for the Western Elmore County Recreation District
in Mountain Home, Idaho for planning, design, and construction
of a community center complex;
$750,000 for Boise State University in Boise, Idaho for
planning, design, and construction of an environmental science
and economic development building;
$500,000 for the Idaho Migrant Council for planning,
design, and construction of a community center in Burley,
Idaho;
$250,000 for the Idaho State Historical Society for the
Idaho Heritage Tourism and Historic Preservation Community
Development Project;
$300,000 for the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central
Indiana, Anderson, Indiana; for the construction of a
warehouse;
$400,000 for the Unity Center, Muncie, Indiana; for the
construction of a community center;
$300,000 for the Randolph County YMCA, Winchester, Indiana;
for the expansion of the child day care space;
$750,000 for Sedgwick County, Kansas for the construction
of a technical education and training center;
$750,000 for TLC for Children and Families in Olathe,
Kansas for the construction of a residential treatment center;
$500,000 for the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation
in Kansas City, Missouri for the NeighborhoodsNOW neighborhood
revitalization project in Wyandotte County, Kansas;
$600,000 for the Kansas Polymer Research Center at
Pittsburg State University for the purchase of equipment for
its facility in Pittsburg, Kansas;
$500,000 for the city of Atchison, Kansas to redevelop the
central businesss district pedestrian mall in the city of
Atchison;
$500,000 for the city of Kansas City, Kansas for the
downtown redevelopment and revitalization project in the city
of Kansas City, Kansas;
$200,000 for the city of Wichita, Kansas for the 21st
Street industrial corridor revitalization plan and pre-
engineering designs in the city of Wichita;
$200,000 for World Impact Incorporated's Good Samaritan
Clinic to renovate existing clinic facilities in the city of
Wichita, Kansas;
$1,000,000 for LaRue County, Kentucky for an Abraham
Lincoln Bicentennial development project;
$2,000,000 for the the Murray-Calloway Industrial Authority
in Murray, Kentucky, for the Murray-Calloway Industrial Park
Development Project;
$250,000 for the Robinson Film Center is Shreveport,
Louisiana, for facility renovations;
$250,000 for the Robert E. Nims Center for Entertainment
Arts and Multi-Media Technology in Jefferson Parish, to upgrade
existing facilities, equipment, and curriculum;
$400,000 for the city of Brewer, Maine for a redevelopment
project on the site of the former Eastern Fine Paper Mill;
$200,000 for the town of Rumford, Maine to create
affordable quality housing;
$200,000 for the city of Gardiner, Maine for shore
stabilization and waterfront infrastructure;
$200,000 for community concepts in Lewiston, Maine to
construct a family service center;
$200,000 for the Shalom House in Portland, Maine to develop
affordable housing for the homeless and disabled;
$200,000 for the Holbrook Community Foundation in
Harpswell, Maine to purchase Holbrook's Wharf for continued use
as a working waterfront;
$200,000 for the Penobscot Theatre Company in Bangor, Maine
to renovate the Bangor Opera House;
$200,000 for the Maine Historical Society in Portland,
Maine to renovate and expand its research library;
$200,000 to the Office of Community Development, Maine
Department of Economic and Community Development, for
construction of public facilities and site improvements to
support education in horticultural and environmental
stewardship;
$200,000 for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, in Red
Lake, Minnesota, to expand and upgrade the Red Lake Criminal
Justice Complex;
$200,000 for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, in St.
Paul, Minnesota, for supportive housing for long-term homeless
providing eight long-term homeless families and individuals
with housing and rehabilitation;
$200,000 for the Mesabi Academy of KidsPeace in Buhl,
Minnesota, to renovate their therapeutic programming center;
$200,000 for the Sheriff's Youth Programs of Minnesota, in
Rochester, Minnesota, to be used for the construction of a new
facility in Dodge County and a permanent chemical dependency
outpatient facility in Rochester;
$200,000 for the Audubon Center of the North Woods in
Sandstone, Minnesota, for facilities construction and
renovation to their center;
$1,000,000 for the University of Mississippi Innovation and
Outreach Center;
$1,000,000 for the Historic Madison Gateway Project in
Madison, Mississippi;
$400,000 for the University of Montana Law School's
facility construction and expansion, Missoula, Montana;
$400,000 for the Southwestern Montana Family YMCA, facility
construction, Dillon, Montana;
$750,000 for Montana State University to purchase the
historic Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana;
$500,000 for the Rocky Boy Reservation's utilization of
Malmstrom Air Force Base's excess housing, Montana;
$350,000 for Butte-Silver Bow County's rehabilitation of
the Butte Naval Reserve Recreational Center, Butte, Montana;
$500,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Authority's
redevelopment of a recreational facility, Billings, Montana;
$400,000 for Gallatin County's efforts to redevelop a
recreational facility, Bozeman, Montana;
$200,000 for the town of Eureka, Montana to construct a
community center, Eureka, MT;
$200,000 for the city of Wilson, North Carolina to clear
dilapidated buildings and warehouses;
$200,000 for the city of Fayetteville, North Carolina for
Military Business Park Development;
$200,000 for the the Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing
Partnership in Charlotte, North Carolina to redevelop the
Statesville Avenue Corridor;
$200,000 to the city of Monroe, North Carolina for the
renovation of Old Armory for neighborhood revitalization;
$200,000 to the city of Greenville, North Carolina for
neighborhood revitalization;
$200,000 for Rocky Mount, North Carolina for the Booker T.
Washington renovations to provide the city with a recreational
community center;
$200,000 for Ayden, North Carolina for renovations to the
Ayden Arts and Recreation Community Center;
$200,000 for the Sabre Society of Hickory, North Carolina
to construct a military avaiation and tranportation musuem for
economic development;
$200,000 for the city of Durham, North Carolina for the
West Point on the Eno Education and Resource Center;
$200,000 for the city of Ahoskie, North Carolina for the
Senior Citizen Housing Project;
$250,000 for University of Nebraska-Omaha to develop its
Center for Business Intelligence and Visualization;
$250,000 for Northeast Community College to develop a
collaborative education center in South Sioux City, Nebraska;
$250,000 for Heartland Family Service's Sarpy County Family
Services Center in Papillion, Nebraska;
$250,000 for People's City Mission to develop Transitional
Housing for Domestic Violence Victims in Lincoln, Nebraska;
$1,000,000 for the Northern Community Investment
Corporation in Saint Johnsbury, Vermont, for a broadband
initiative serving the North Country of New Hampshire;
$300,000 for Operation Flood Relief by the Southwestern
Community Services, New Hampshire, to assist with damages
suffered in October 2005 flood;
$300,000 for the State of New Hampshire Department of
Resources and Economic Development, for the reconstruction of
the Robert Frost Farm;
$400,000 for the Harbor Homes, Inc, Buckingham Place,
Nashua New Hampshire, for the construction of transitional
housing and support services for homeless military veterans;
$400,000 NH Community Technical College-Pease Campus,
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for a photonics and laser laboratory
to develop an undergraduate and certificate program to support
high technology manufacturing jobs;
$400,000 Easter Seals, Manchester, New Hampshire, to assist
with the repair and renovation of the Easter seals facility
following major flood damage;
$200,000 Southwestern Community Services, Operation Flood
Relief, Keene, New Hampshire, to assist with the repair and
rehabilitation of housing for flood victims with uninsured, and
otherwise unmet, losses following severe flooding in Cheshire
and Sullivan Counties in October 2005;
$250,000 for Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for expansion of
facilities for La Pinon Sexual Assault Recovery Services in Las
Cruces, New Mexico;
$200,000 for the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, for
expansion of La Casa, Inc. facilities;
$800,000 for Presbyterian Medical Services in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, for construction of the Aztec-Bloomfield, New Mexico
Head Start Facility;
$500,000 for the city of Belen, New Mexico, for the
construction of its community multi-purpose center;
$750,000 for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for
construction of its Metropolitan Assessment and Treatment
Transitional Housing Facility;
$500,000 for Eastern New Mexico University in Portales, New
Mexico for technology infrastructure and equipment;
$1,000,000 for the Nathan Adelson Hospice in Henderson,
Nevada for the construction of an adult day care center;
$200,000 for the Transitional Housing, Inc. in Cleveland,
Ohio for capitol improvements to its facility;
$200,000 for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio for acquistion
and remediation of the Queen City Barrel area;
$200,000 for the Washington State Community College
Foundation in Marietta, Ohio for planning and design of a
health resources building;
$200,000 for Defiance County in Defiance, Ohio for
construction of the Defiance County Senior Services Center;
$1,300,000 for Youngstown Central Area Community
Improvement Corporation for the Youngstown Technology Center,
Ohio, for land and site acquisition, demolition, facilities
construction and parking facilities;
$200,000 for Rhodes State College, Lima, Ohio, for the
Integrated Manufacturing Training Center (IMTC), for equipment;
$200,000 for Connecting our Workforce to the Future (CWF)
program, Clark State Community College, Ohio for land and site
acquisition, demolition, facilities construction and equipment;
$200,000 for Glen Helen Ecology Institute, Yellow Springs,
Ohio, to upgrade facilities;
$300,000 for the Lorain County Community College Foundation
in Elyria, Ohio for the construction of the Entrepreneurship
Innovation Center;
$200,000 for the city of Ardmore, Oklahoma, to construct
the Ardmore Community Resources Center;
$200,000 for Rural Enterprises Institute of Oklahoma to
continue the HUD Employer Assisted Housing Project;
$200,000 for Norman Economic Development Coalition, Norman,
Oklahoma, to construct an aerospace engineering incubator;
$200,000 for the Native American Cultural and Educational
Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to construct the American
Indian Cultural Center;
$200,000 for the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Acree-Woodworth/Massman
Expansion Project;
$200,000 for Neighbors for Kids in Depoe Bay, Oregon for
the Depoe Bay Kids Zone Facility Expansion Project;
$300,000 for the port of Toledo to develop a marine
industrial site in Toledo, Oregon;
$300,000 for the Portland Development Commission to develop
affordable housing within the South Waterfront District in
Portland, Oregon;
$200,000 for the Port of Cascade Locks in Cascade Locks,
Oregon for its waterfront development project;
$200,000 for the borough of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania,
for the Kennett Square Downtown Revitalization Project;
$200,000 for the Urban League of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania to establish The Urban Entrepreneurial Development
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Hermitage, Pennsylvania, to
construct the LindenPointe Technology and Innovation Center;
$200,000 for the Sharon Reed Development Corporation,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for renovations as part of the 59th
Street project;
$200,000 for the Beaver County Planning Commission, Beaver,
Pennsylvania, for development of the Hopewell Industrial Park
Phase II;
$200,000 for the city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania for
construction at the Coal Street complex rehabilitation project;
$200,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Planning,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for mixed-use development of the Mt.
Ararat Community Renaissance;
$200,000 for Erie County, Erie, Pennsylvania, to build
technology-based incubator at Gannon University in the city of
Erie;
$200,000 for Muhlenberg Township, Pennsylvania for site
improvement, and other pre-development preparation of a
brownfield site;
$200,000 for the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania for the
conversion of an existing brownfield into public space;
$200,000 for Our City Reading in Reading, Pennsylvania to
rehabilitate abandoned houses and provide down payment
assistance to home buyers;
$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the County of
Washington in Washington, Pennsylvania to rehabilitate,
renovate, and restore the former Western Center Administration
building into a Regional Learning Center;
$200,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania for planning, design, demolition and construction
of affordable housing units;
$200,000 for Edgemont Community Improvement Association in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for the renovation, rehabilitation and
conversion of a former school building into a community center;
$200,000 for the city of Hazleton, in Hazelton,
Pennsylvania for planning and rehabilitation of the Markle
Building and Market Faire;
$200,000 for the Erie Municipal Airport Authority in Erie,
Pennsylvania for redevelopment and construction of a multi-
modal cargo distribution center;
$200,000 for the August Wilson Center for African American
Culture in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for planning, site
preparation and construction of an African American Cultural
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Bethlehem in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania to support the redevelopment, renovation and
construction of a South Bethlehem Workforce Training and
Development Center at Northampton Community College;
$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the city of
Coatesville in Coatesville, Pennsylvania for planning site
preparation, revitalization and construction of a New
Coatesville Incubator;
$200,000 for the Economic Development Company of Lancaster
in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for demolition, redevelopment and
construction at the site of the former Armstrong Liberty Street
plant;
$200,000 for the Stadium Theatre in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island for building renovations;
$200,000 for the town of Lincoln, Rhode Island for
improvements at Barney Pond;
$200,000 for the Town of Warren, Rhode Island for
improvements to the Town Wharf;
$200,000 for the town of West Warwick for improvements at
Riverpoint Park;
$200,000 for the Cranston Alternate Education Program in
Cranston, Rhode Island for building improvements;
$200,000 for the Providence Performing Arts Center in
Providence, Rhode Island for building renovations;
$200,000 for the town of Burrillville, Rhode Island for
construction of the Jesse Smith Library and Meeting Center;
$200,000 for Meeting Street School in Providence, Rhode
Island for the construction of the Meeting Street National
Center of Excellence;
$200,000 for the CVS/Highlander Charter School in
Providence, Rhode Island for the construction of the Broad
Street Children's Zone;
$200,000 for the World War II Memorial Commission of Rhode
Island for the construction of the World War II Memorial;
$500,000 for the city of Union, South Carolina to develop a
regional robotics training center;
$400,000 for the city of Florence, South Carolina to
develop a community/activity center;
$200,000 for York County, South Carolina to develop a
business/industry incubator project;
$200,000 for Dillon County, South Carolina to develop an I-
95 Gateway Industrial Park Spec Building;
$500,000 for the city of Rock Hill, South Carolina for the
infrastrcutre improvements for the Hagins-Fewell Neighborhood
with the installation of a new storm water system;
$200,000 for the city of Greenville, South Carolina to
redevelop the community recreation center;
$400,000 to the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Fort
Pierre, South Dakota for construction of the Wakpa Sica
Reconciliation Place;
$600,000 to the Childrens Home Society in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota for at-risk youth facilities expansion;
$500,000 for Middle Tennessee State University in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee to construct an education and
conference center;
$500,000 for the African American History Foundation of
Nashville, Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee for construction of
facilities and equipment;
$500,000 for the city of Jackson, Tennessee to construct
community facilites and infrastructure;
$200,000 for the town of Pittman Center, Tennessee to
construct a community center;
$250,000 for Cumberland County, Tennessee to establish a
business incubator;
$300,000 for the city of Memphis, Tennessee for the
University Place housing revitalization project;
$300,000 for the PNI Neighborhood Commercial and Small
Business Development Program in Knoxville, Tennessee to support
economic development activities;
$250,000 for the city of Johnson City, Tennessee to
construct infrastructure and facilities at the Innovation Park;
$200,000 for the Tri-Cities Economic Development Alliance
in Blountville, Tennessee to support the regional World Trade
Center;
$200,000 for Tom Green County, Texas, for the relocation
and expansion of the Tom Green County Library;
$200,000 for Laredo, Texas, for the renovation of the
Historic Plaza Theatre;
$200,000 for Beaumont, Texas, for downtown improvements in
the city of Beaumont;
$200,000 for Harris County, Texas, for the Hurricane
Katrina Evacuee Workforce Development Initiative;
$200,000 for the North Texas Food Bank in Dallas, Texas,
for facility renovation and expansion;
$200,000 for Marshall, Texas, for the renovation of the
Memorial Hall Visitor and History Center;
$200,000 for Hillsboro, Texas, for downtown streetscape
improvements in the city of Hillsboro;
$200,000 for Temple, Texas, for the development of the
Performing Arts Centre;
$200,000 for Brownwood, Texas, for downtown streetscape
improvements in the city of Brownwood;
$200,000 for Midland, Texas, for downtown redevelopment in
the city of Midland;
$200,000 for the city of Pearland, Texas for the planning
and design of the Pearland Business and Commerce Park in the
city of Pearland;
$300,000 for the city of Abilene, Texas for the
construction of a new hanger at the Abilene Regional Airport
Industrial Park in the city of Abilene;
$300,000 for Global Samaritan Resources, Inc. in Abilene,
Texas for the construction of a food distribution warehouse;
$200,000 for the Houston Community College in Houston,
Texas for the enhancement and expansion of the Multi-Cultural
Business Entrepreneurial Center;
$400,000 for the city of Smithfield, Utah to construct a
plaza for the new city center;
$450,000 for the city of Salina, Utah to construct a
community center;
$450,000 for Grand County, Utah to construct a senior
citizen housing center;
$200,000 for the city of Ogden, Utah for rehabilitation of
affordable housing;
$200,000 for Provo City Downtown Parking Structure in
Provo, Utah, to develop a parking structure for approximately
400 vehicles;
$200,000 for community development and park facility
improvements for Eagle Mountain's Pony Express Regional Park,
Eagle Mountain, Utah;
$200,000 for municipal offices project in Syracuse City,
Utah, for the construction of a new city office building;
$200,000 for Brigham City, Utah, to renovate a building for
use as a regional innovation center in Northern Utah;
$200,000 for San Juan County, Utah, to move the fairgrounds
site, including a new exhibit building/indoor-arena and other
livestock exhibits for 4-H, Junior Livestock, and other
activities to site located south of Monticello, Utah;
$200,000 for the city of Newport News, Virginia for the
enhancement of the J. Clyde Morris ``Avenue of the Arts'';
$200,000 for the city of Suffolk, Virginia for improvements
of the Museum of African-American History;
$200,000 for the Staunton Performing Arts Center in
Staunton, Virginia, for continued enhancements of the Center;
$200,000 for the Shenandoah County Arts Center Foundation
in Edinburg, Virginia for the renovation and expansion of the
Center;
$300,000 for the Appalachian Service Project in Jonesville,
Virginia to support the year round home repair program;
$400,00 for the Christopher Newport University Real Estate
Foundation in Newport News, Virginia, for the Warwick Boulevard
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project;
$300,000 for the Alexandria Branch of the Boys and Girls
Club in Alexandria, Virginia, for the renovation and expansion
of the Alexandria Branch of the Boys and Girls Club;
$200,000 for the The Mariners' Museum in Newport News,
Virginia, for the The USS Monitor Center at the Mariners'
Museum;
$400,000 for the University of Wyoming Technology Business
Center, Laramie Wyoming, for information technology, among
other things servers, routers, photonics for high-speed data
transmission;
$200,000 for the Campbell County Senior Center, city of
Gillette Wyoming, to conduct an assessment of existing
infrastructure for future growth and expansion;
$200,000 for the Wyoming Rural Development Council,
Cheyenne Wyoming, for county assistance to Wyoming counties to
conduct community assessments to look at their respective
economic development assets and liabilities;
$200,000 for the Lander Business Park, city of Lander
Wyoming, for the installation of enhancements to complete the
business park;
$200,000 for the city of Gillette, Wyoming for construction
of the Wyoming Technical Training Center at the Gillette Campus
of the Northern Wyoming Community College;
$200,000 for the Central Wyoming College Foundation in
Riverton, Wyoming for construction and the purchase of
equipment for the Intertribal Education and Community Center;
$200,000 for the Sheridan Heritage Center in Sheridan,
Wyoming for restoration of the Sheridan Inn;
$200,000 for the city of Kemmerer, Wyoming to purchase
necessary technology equipment for the South Lincoln Events
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming for construction
of the Community Recreation Center;
$900,000 for Northeast Mississippi Community College for
facility renovations;
$1,500,000 for the University of Mississippi for facilities
restoration and development;
$700,000 for the town of Marietta, Mississippi for the
multi purpose building;
$800,000 for Hinds Community College Utica Campus facility
restoration and development;
$500,000 to for the city of Hattiesburg, Mississippi to
redevelop the Hattiesburg High School;
$400,000 for the city of Canton, Mississippi to redevelop
the historic Canton High School;
$200,000 for the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi to renovate
St. Francis Xavier auditorium;
$200,000 for the town of Bolton, Mississippi municipal
building;
$800,000 for Delta State University facility restoration
and development;
$1,000,000 for the development of the Center for Functional
Foods, Missouri, for construction and equipment costs;
$875,000 for the development of the Agricultural Complex,
Stoddard County, Missouri, for transportation and
infrastructure improvements;
$875,000 for the Mobile Biosciences Education Unit at the
St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis, Missouri, for equipment
and programmatic costs;
$500,000 for the development of the George Washington
Carver Building Restoration Project, Jackson County, Missouri,
for safety and environmental improvements;
$750,000 for the development of the Allied Health Building
at North Central Missouri College, Grundy County, Missouri, for
infrastructure expansion;
$250,000 for the redevelopment of the William Jewell
College Student Union, Clay County, Missouri, for the
reconstruction of a new facility;
$250,000 for the development of a planetarium at Truman
State University, Adair County, Missouri, for construction and
equipment costs;
$250,000 for the development of the Winston Churchill
Memorial, Callaway County, Missouri, for the continued
restoration costs;
$250,000 for the development of the Downtown West Plains
Business Incubator, Howell County, Missouri, for construction
and equipment costs;
$200,000 for planning and construction of the Kauai
Children's Discovery Museum and the Garden Island Arts Council
Joint Venture: Visitors Center, Kauai County, Hawaii;
$200,000 for Gregory House renovations, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Gregory House provides transitional housing for individuals
with HIV/AIDS;
$200,000 for planning and construction of the Arc of Hilo's
Client Support Services Facility in Hilo, Hawaii;
$200,000 for the Harvest Community Foundation to build the
Billings Heights Community Center;
$200,000 for CommunityWorks to build the facility and
create the exhibits for the ExplorationWorks Center which will
be an innovative, hands-on museum of science and culture;
$200,000 for Butte Silver Bow Arts Foundation to renovate
their building in Historic Uptown Butte to create a world-class
art museum, an accredited arts school, and an art incubator;
$200,000 for the University Montana to renovate and upgrade
its law school;
$200,000 for the Daly Mansion Preservation Trust to restore
and preserve the Daly Mansion;
$200,000 for Columbus, Indiana to build and equip the Mill
Race Center for seniors;
$200,000 to the St. Michael's School and Nursery, Inc. in
Wilmington, Delaware for the continued expansion of the school;
$200,000 for the Ministry of Caring, Sacred Heart Village,
in Wilmington, Delaware for renovation of the facility;
$200,000 for expansion of the Beautiful Gate Outreach
Center, Wilmington, Delaware;
$300,000 for the city of Coral Gables, Florida for the
renovation of the Historic Biltmore complex;
$300,000 for the city of Orlando, Florida for the Parramore
Neighborhood Revitalization Project;
$200,000 for the city of Miami, for the Performing Arts
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Hollywood for the renovation of
the Holocaust Education and Documentation Center;
$200,000 for the city of Miami for the Elderly Assistance
Program;
$200,000 for the Central Florida YMCA for construction of
the Viera Project;
$200,000 for the Old Town Boys and Girls Club, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, for a facility;
$200,000 for a Veterans' War Memorial in Carlsbad, New
Mexico;
$250,000 for TV-I's Southwest Center for Advanced
Manufacturing and Mechatronics Education facility, Albuquerque,
New Mexico;
$300,000 for the Boys and Girls club of Socorro County, New
Mexico, for a facility;
$250,000 for the South Valley Regional Recreational Center
in Dona Ana County, New Mexico;
$200,000 for a city-county public safety building in
McKinley County, New Mexico;
$400,000 for the Boys and Girls Club, San Bernardino,
California, for repair and renovations of the current facility
to provide academic and afterschool programs for at-risk youth
in a low income area;
$200,000 for the Carl R. Hansen Teen Center, Sacramento,
California, for construction of a new teen center facility in
the South Natomas area that will expand the capability of
serving youth ages 12-18 in a low income area;
$1,000,000 to repair and renovate the Memorial Building in
Princeton, West Virginia, for an All-Wars Museum;
$1,400,000 to support the construction of a new training
facility for the PACE Training and Evaluation Center (PACE Tec)
in Morgantown, West Virginia. PACE Tec is a non-profit
vocational rehabilitation center that provides vocational
opportunities to people with disabilities;
$100,000 for the Raleigh County, WV, Branch of the NAACP
for the development of a Multi-Cultural Museum and Community
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Lewes, Delaware, for the reuse of
a brownfield site and the adjacent asphalt parking area as
community space and recreation area along the canalfront in
Lewes, Delaware;
$200,000 for the Riverfront Redevelopment Corporation to
construct a children's museum as part of the larger effort to
remove blight and redevelop brownfields along the Christina
Riverfront in Wilmington, Delaware;
$200,000 for the expansion of the Middletown-Odessa-
Townsend Senior Center in Middletown, Delaware, to respond to
the burgeoning senior population and help the elderly poor in
the area to remain independent;
$800,000 for the construction and expansion of the National
Women's Hall of Fame for economic development in Seneca Falls,
New York;
$200,000 for the construction of the Schenectady YMCA for
economic development in Schenectady, New York;
$200,000 for the construction and expansion of wireless
services for underserved areas in the city of Albany, New York;
$200,000 for the construction and expansion of the St.
Lawrence County Regional Rural Broadband in Canton, New York;
$200,000 for renovation of the Strand for Economic
Development in Plattsburgh, New York;
$200,000 for the Williston Area Economic Development
Partnership, Williston, North Dakota, for the construction of a
petroleum safety and technology training center;
$200,000 for the United Tribes Technical College in
Bismarck, North Dakoa, for the construction of student family
housing;
$200,000 for the Minot Area Development Corporation, Minot,
North Dakoa, for the construction a value-added agricultural
complex;
$200,000 for the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches,
Division of Indian Work in Minneapolis, Minnesota to renovate
the Healing Spirit House which provides housing for American
Indian foster children;
$200,000 for the Lao Advancement Association of America in
Minneapolis, Minnesota for structural repairs to the interior
and exterior of the Lao Cultural Center;
$200,000 for the town of Vernon, Connecticut, for necessary
interior and exterior renovations to the Amberbelle Mill
facility that will prevent blight and keep the structure viable
for commercial purposes in a low-income neighborhood;
$200,000 for Empower New Haven, Inc., New Haven,
Connecticut, for assisting low-income homeowners in making
necessary repairs to their properties;
$200,000 for the city of Hartford, Connecticut,
homeownership initiative for increasing the city's current
homeownership rate of 25 percent;
$200,000 for The Children's Home, Cromwell, Connecticut,
for the reconstruction of its facilities serving children with
special needs and their families;
$400,000 for REAP Zones, Rugby North Dakota, for
continuation of economic development initiatives;
$350,000 for the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, Minot North
Dakota, for facility improvements;
$300,000 for the University of North Dakota BLS-3 Lab,
Grand Forks North Dakota, for research and development for
therapeutic agents and vaccines;
$300,000 for the Bismarck State College National Energy
Technology Training Center, Bismarck North Dakota, to acquire
additional classroom space;
$250,000 for the Sitting Bull College Student Center, Fort
Yates North Dakota, for construction of a student support
center;
$200,000 for the Turtle Mountain Youth Center, Belcourt
North Dakota, for construction of a center to provide a safe-
haven for youth;
$300,000 for the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition for
the ongoing Looking for Lincoln economic development and
tourism initiative in more than 12 Illinois communities;
$500,000 statewide for utilization and capital expenses for
broadband installation in underserved and low-income areas.
Administered by the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity;
$250,000 for Boys and Girls Club of Springfield for a new
community center on Springfield's East Side;
$250,000 for the city of Quincy's riverfront infrastructure
improvement initiative, connecting public facilities and public
space in an economically distressed area;
$200,000 to help construct a senior citizen Lifespan Center
for the Coles County Council on Aging;
$200,000 for Community Support Services, Inc in Brookfield
to construct a facility that will provide support services for
families with disabilities;
$250,000 for the city of Des Plaines for construction of a
youth and community center to supplement existing, overcrowded
facilities;
$250,000 for the Lakeview Museum in Peoria to match non-
federal funds for construction of a museum facility designed to
promote economic development and tourism in downtown Peoria;
$250,000 for the city and county of San Francisco,
California for Mason Street Housing supportive housing for the
homeless;
$250,000 for the city of Redding, California for the
Stillwater Business Park economic development project;
$250,000 for the city of Fresno, California for the
Regional Economic Development and Research Center;
$250,000 for the Watts Cinema and Education Center, Los
Angeles, California, for the Wattstar Theatre and Education
Center job creation and economic development project;
$200,000 for the county of Fresno, California for the
Westside Vocational Training Center;
$800,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development
for the Main Street Program;
$300,000 for Council Bluffs, Iowa for the 23rd Avenue
Neighborhood Project;
$300,000 for Cedar Rapids, Iowa for redevelopment;
$300,000 for the Scott County Iowa Housing Council for
affordable housing;
$300,000 for the Iowa Finance Authority for assisted living
facilities;
$300,000 for the Keehi Memorial Organization, Honolulu,
Hawaii, for the establishment of a Keehi Adult Day Health
Center to provide social, cultural educational, and
recreational activities for economically disadvantaged senior
citizens;
$300,000 for the Waipahu Jack Hall Memorial Housing
Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii, to repair, operate, and maintain
the Kunia Village's housing infrastructure. Kunia Village is a
rural complex that houses employees of Del Monte Fresh Produce
Hawaii, a pineapple company that is terminating its operations
in 2008;
$200,000 for the Agribusiness Development Corporation,
Honolulu, Hawaii, to initiate the planning and designing of dam
safety improvements of the Lake Wilson Dam, to ensure the
recreational and residential integrity of this community
resource;
$200,000 for the Goodwill Industries of Hawaii, Inc., to
build a career and learning center in Leeward Oahu, for job
training and development programs, as well as a Goodwill retail
store and donation center;
$200,000 for the Easter Seals Hawaii, to construct an
18,000 square foot program service center in Kapolei, Hawaii,
to serve 500 youths and adults with autism, cerebral palsy,
Down's Syndrome, and other disabilities within the West Oahu
community;
$200,000 for the construction of a research center at the
Kauai Botanical Gardens, to preserve the rare plant and book
collection, and to protect them from the extreme weather
conditions that the Kauai Island frequently faces;
$200,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, to
design, develop, and construct interactive exhibits that would
create community awareness on environmental issues;
$200,000 for the Catholic Charities Hawaii, to purchase and
renovate facilities for a Catholic Charities Hawaii Social
Service Community Center;
$200,000 for the Arc of Hilo, to build a 17,000 square foot
client support services facility in Hilo, to expand its
services in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities;
$200,000 for the expansion and preservation of the Calvin
Coolidge State historic site in Plymouth Notch, Vermont;
$200,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to
construct affordable housing in Windham County and Caledonia
County, Vermont;
$200,000 for accessibility improvements to the River Arts
community facility in Morrisville, Vermont;
$1,000,000 to the University of South Dakota in Vermillion,
South Dakota, for medical school construction;
$400,000 to Four Bands Community Fund in Eagle Butte, South
Dakota, for revolving loan fund recapitalization;
$500,000 for City Year, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, for
the acquisition and design of a new headquarters facility;
$300,000 for the city of Pittsfield, Massachusetts for the
redevelopment of a historic building;
$200,000 for Mont Marie Senior Residence, Inc., Holyoke,
Massachusetts, for the development of a low-income senior
housing facility;
$200,000 for the city of Northampton, Massachusetts for the
design and construction of an affordable housing development;
$200,000 for the city of North Adams, Massachusetts for the
redevelopment of a historic building;
$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Westfield,
Inc., Westfield, Massachusetts for facility renovations and
repairs;
$200,000 for the city of Taunton, Massachusetts for
renovations to senior housing facility;
$200,000 for the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the
Convent Hill low income housing development;
$200,000 for the Waukesha Technical College, Waukesha,
Wisconsin, for the expansion of the Printing Applied Technology
Center;
$200,000 for the city of Rhinelander, Wisconsin for the
construction of a business park;
$200,000 for the city of Beloit, Wisconsin, for the Beloit
Neighborhood Development Low Income Housing restoration and
infrastructure improvements;
$200,000 for the town of Madison, Wisconsin, for the
remediation of a Brownfield on the Novation Technology Campus;
$200,000 for the Agape Community Center Expansion in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
$200,000 for the riverfront expansion project in La Crosse,
Wisconsin;
$200,000 for the town of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, for the
Northwest Enterprise Center Expansion Project;
$200,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the city of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Milwaukee VA Medical Campus
Redevelopment;
$200,000 for the city of Racine, Wisconsin, for the
Redevelopment of the Walker Manufacturing Property;
$200,000 for the city of Lake Charles to build a wetlands
center to increase public awareness of the conservation efforts
taking place in South Louisiana;
$200,000 for the Audubon Living Science Museum to develop
and design the second phase of the insectarium;
$200,000 for the Center for Planning Excellence to fund the
Old South Baton Rouge Strategic Plan Pilot Project by
developing affordable housing, neighborhood rehabilitation and
to create and improve public spaces;
$200,000 for the Edison Wetlands Association in Edison, New
Jersey for the Dismal Swamp Conservation Trails Project.
Funding will be used for the design and construction of trails
for passive public recreation in the Dismal Swamp Conservation
Area;
$200,000 for the Tri-County Community Action Partnership in
Bridgeton, New Jersey for the Southeast Gateway Project. Funds
will go to construction of neighborhood parks, gardens,
acquisition of property for retail opportunities, providing
grants for home repair;
$200,000 for Wynona's House Capital Improvements, Newark,
New Jersey.Funds will go towards renovating its permanent home
to establish a new child advocacy center that provides a
spectrum of services to victims of child abuse;
$2,000,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,
Montpelier, Vermont, for projects throughout Vermont to enhance
affordable housing, economic development, land conservation and
historic preservation;
$200,000 to Michigan Technological University in Houghton,
Michigan for the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum
to the Keweenaw National Park Site;
$200,000 for the city of Benton Harbor, Michigan for costs
associated with the Harbor Shores Development Project;
$200,000 for the Ruth Ellis Center in Highland Park,
Michigan for costs associated with their Street Outreach
Program;
$200,000 for the Horace Bushnell Memorial Hall Corporation
in Hartford, Connecticut for facility repair and renovation;
$200,000 for the town of Branford, Connecticut for the
repair and restoration of the James Blackstone Memorial
Library;
$200,000 for Empower New Haven in New Haven, Connecticut
for the New Haven Home Repair Program;
$200,000 for the town of Manchester, Connecticut for
construction of a youth development center on Spruce Street;
$300,000 for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for
the construction of the Business Support Incubator in Pine
Bluff, Arkansas;
$300,000 for the University of Arkansas-Monticello for the
construction of the Forest Resources Center in Monticello,
Arkansas;
$200,000 for Audubon Arkansas for the development of the
Audubon Nature Center at Gillam Park in Little Rock, Arkansas;
$200,000 for Hudson County, New Jersey for the
redevelopment of the Koppers Coke brownfields site;
$200,000 for borough of Collingswood, New Jersey for the
Collingswood Community Theatre;
$200,000 for Monmouth County, New Jersey for the Monmouth
County Children's Advocacy Center;
$200,000 for the Housing and Neighborhood Development
Services, Inc., Orange, New Jersey for the Berg Hat Factory
Commercial Arts Center;
$200,000 for the Mercer County Improvement Authority,
Trenton, New Jersey for the renovation of the American Steel
and Wire Company Factory Building;
$300,000 for the Diakon Housing and Development, Baltimore,
Maryland for costs related to the development of Diakon Place,
a child care and youth services center;
$1,000,000 for the East Baltimore Development Project,
Maryland for services to the low-income residents of East
Baltimore and for general operating costs;
$300,000 for the Patterson Park Community Development
Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland for acquisition and
redevelopment of blighted property in and around Library
Square;
$200,000 for the Washington County Free Library, Boonsboro,
Maryland for the design and construction of a new library;
$400,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for pedestrian
safety improvements in the Long Branch community;
$250,000 for the city of Bellingham, Washington for
construction of the Bellingham Marine Trades Center;
$500,000 for the city of Everett, Washington for to
renovate and expand the Everett Senior Activity Center;
$250,000 for the Northwest Maritime Center in Port
Townsend, Washington for redevelopment of the former Thomas Oil
Brownfield Site;
$500,000 for the Asian Counseling and Referral Service in
Seattle, Washington for facility construction;
$300,000 for El Centro de la Raza in Seattle, Washington
for facility improvements and repairs;
$450,000 for FareStart in Seattle, Washington for
construction and rehabilitation of its new facility;
$250,000 for the Seattle Housing Authority in Seattle,
Washington for construction of the High Point Neighborhood
Center;
$250,000 for the Nisei Veterans Committee in Seattle,
Washington for renovations to its Memorial Hall;
$400,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of King County in
Seattle, Washington for construction of the Rainier Vista Boys
and Girls Club;
$300,000 for the East Central Community Organization in
Spokane, Washington for facility improvements and expansion;
$300,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of King County in
Seattle, Washington for facility renovation and construction of
the Jim Wiley Community Center at Greenbridge;
$250,000 for the YMCA of Tacoma-Pierce County in Tacoma,
Washington for construction of a YMCA facility in Gig Harbor,
Washington;
$600,000 for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska for
construction of a residential treatment facility for children
and adolescents in South Sioux City, Nebraska;
$400,000 for Northeast Community College for construction
of an education center in South Sioux City, Nebraska;
$200,000 for Heartland Family Service for construction of
the Sarpy County Family Service Center in Papillion, Nebraska;
$200,000 to the county of Peoria, Illinois for equipment
and costs related to the physical lead removal program for
domestic dwellings and structures in order to reduce the
occurrences of childhood lead poisoning in low income families
most affected by this problem;
$200,000 to the city of Shawneetown, Illinois for
construction of a children's park, including a play station and
adjoining community center to serve as the centerpiece for
redevelopment of the largest town in Gallatin County, one of
the poorest counties in Illinois;
$200,000 to the Decatur Park District, Illinois for
construction and development of the lakefront area in order to
promote the economic development of the currently diminished
area;
$200,000 to the city of Rock Island, Illinois for
renovation and construction on the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Community Center serving the surrounding low-income community;
$200,000 for the Jeanne Jugan Residence of the Poor,
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, for tuck pointing and roof replacement
of the building;
$500,000 for the Urban League of Rhode Island, Providence,
Rhode Island, for construction of an addition to its South
Providence Neighborhood Center;
$300,000 for Crossroads Rhode Island, North Kingstown,
Rhode Island, for renovation of the affordable housing
development located on Navy Drive;
$200,000 for Coventry Friends of Human Services, Coventry,
Rhode Island, for renovations and construction to the Coventry
CARES Community Center;
$500,000 for the construction of a Trade Training Center in
Las Vegas, Nevada;
$300,000 for Opportunity Village in Las Vegas, Nevada for
construction of an Employment and Training Center;
$250,000 for the city of Reno, Nevada for construction of
the Community Assistance Center;
$300,000 for Washoe County, Nevada for construction of a
senior center;
$250,000 for the city of Las Vegas, Nevada for improvements
to the Fifth Street School;
$200,000 for the city of Sparks, Nevada for construction of
the West End Community Center;
$200,000 for the city of North Las Vegas, Nevada for
construction of a multi-generational recreation facility;
$200,000 for the city and county of Denver, Colorado
Homeless Veterans Supportive Housing Project;
$200,000 for the Gateway Park at the Historic Arkansas
Riverwalk of Pueblo, Colorado;
$200,000 for the Old Blair Auditorium Community Center
renovation project, Silver Spring, Maryland;
$200,000 for the facility improvements and training for the
Baltimore Child Abuse Center, Baltimore, Maryland;
$200,000 for the Points North Housing Coalition, Watertown,
New York to establish emergency housing for at risk families;
$200,000 for the Fordham University Regional Science
Center, Bronx, New York for the art science center that will
serve the Bronx and lower Westchester communities;
$200,000 for the Syracuse Area Landmark Theater, Syracuse,
New York for the reconstruction and expansion of the historic
theater;
$200,000 for the Hudson Valley Community College Model
Automotive Dealership, Troy, New York for a new building for
intraining auto technicians;
$200,000 for the Catholic Family Center, Rochester, New
York Ways to Work Program providing small loans for automobile
purchase or repair to help low-income families access
employment, school, and day care facilities;
$600,000 for expansion of The United Way Training Center in
Detroit, Michigan;
$500,000 for development and expansion of the TechTown
Training and Business Technology Incubator in Detroit,
Michigan;
$200,000 for the Housing Commission of Muskegon Heights,
Michigan for its Neighborhood Networks Initiative;
$250,000 for Saginaw, Michigan for renovations of abandoned
buildings;
$250,000 for Presbyterian Villages of Michigan of
Southfield, Michigan for facility renovations;
$800,000 for the city of Portland, Oregon for the Regional
Bridges to Housing Program.
The Neighborhood Initiative Programs awards are as follows:
$1,000,000 for the city of Fulton, Mississippi for economic
development;
$500,000 to the Self Reliance Network to support the
National Hispanic Financial Literacy and Homeownership
Initiative;
$2,750,000 for West Virginia University to complete the
development of a facility to house forensic science research
and academic programs;
$1,000,000 for economic development and infrastructure
activities in Mingo County, West Virginia;
$1,000,000 for the development of Camp Barnabas, Barry
County, Missouri, for the construction and equipment necessary
for handicap accessible housing for children with special
needs;
$325,000 for research Examining Policy Options to Increase
Minority Homeownership and Eradicate Urban Poverty at the
University of Missouri, St. Louis;
$675,000 for construction and equipment needs at
Morningstar Youth and Family Life Center, Jackson County,
Missouri, for construction and equipment needs.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
guaranteed loans Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.............. $137,500,000 $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2007............. ................. .................
.......... ..........
House allowance................... ................. 2,970,000
..........
Committee recommendation.......... 137,500,000 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and
non-entitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring
real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property,
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for
program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee
program. This amount is $30,000 above the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and $3,000,000 more than the budget request. The
administration recommended no funding for this program. While
the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some
communities the ability to leverage private capital for large
projects through a pledge of future CDBG funds.
Of the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for credit subsidy
costs to guarantee $137,500,000 in section 108 loan commitments
in fiscal year 2007, and $750,000 is for administrative
expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses
account.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $9,900,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment
program. This program provides competitive economic development
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance
with Section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends no funding for this program. This
amount is $9,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level and the same as the budget request. The administration
requested no funding for this program. While this program has
been instrumental in the redevelopment of many communities,
funds have been made available for a similar program through
the Environmental Protection Agency.
home investment partnerships program
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,757,250,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,916,640,000
House allowance......................................... 1,916,640,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,941,640,000
program description
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people.
Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance,
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and
ownership housing and, also, construction of housing. To
participate in the HOME program, State and local governments
must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy.
There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are
experiencing fiscal distress. Funding for the American Dream
Downpayment Assistance initiative is also provided through the
HOME program. This initiative provides downpayment assistance
to low income families to help them achieve homeownership.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,916,640,000
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, including
$25,000,000 for the American Dream Downpyment Fund. This amount
is $184,390,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and $25,000,000 more than the budget request.
The Committee includes $9,000,000 for technical assistance,
the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2006. Of this
amount, $2,700,000 is for qualified nonprofit intermediaries to
provide technical assistance to Community Housing and
Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining $6,300,000 is
for intermediaries to provide technical assistance to HOME
participating jurisdictions. The Committee objects to any
proposal by the Department that ties the use of HOME funds for
homeownership to the allocation of funds under the American
Dream Downpayment Fund.
The Committee includes $25,000,000 for the administration's
American Dream Downpayment Fund [ADDF]. The Committee supports
expanding homeownership opportunities, but is concerned that
this program may be helping families with excessive credit risk
and who may not be the best candidates for homeownership. The
Committee requests that HUD report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the rate of default by those in
the program as well as the numbers of participants who have
missed their mortgage payments by 30 days, by 60 days and by 90
days and/or who have received some form of relief to keep their
mortgages current. This report is due no later than July 31,
2006 and shall be repeated annually.
In addition the Committee notes that GAO-06-677 report
cites several weakness in the ADDF, including large unexpended
balances since the programs inception and HUD's inability to
segregate ADDF funding from non-ADDF funding as required to
measure performance.
Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $42,000,000 is
for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund
housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by
the administration. The Committee views homeownership
counseling, including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an
essential part of successful homeownership. The Committee
expects that this program will remain available to those
participating in all HUD's homeownership programs. The
Committee continues to urge HUD to utilize this program as a
means of educating homebuyers on the dangers of predatory
lending, in addition to the administration's stated purpose of
expanding homeownership opportunities.
SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $60,390,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 39,700,000
House allowance......................................... 60,390,000
Committee recommendation................................ 66,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program [SHOP] funds
assist low-income homebuyers willing to contribute ``sweat
equity'' toward the construction of their houses. The funds
will increase nonprofit organization's ability to leverage
funds from other sources and produce at least 2,000 new
homeownership units. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account.
SHOP was previously funded as a set-aside within the Community
Development Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for the Self Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program which is $5,610,000 more than
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $26,300,000 more than
the budget request. The budget request did not propose any
funding in this account beyond the Self-Help Homeownership
Opportunity Program. The Committee has included funding for
additional programs to enhance affordable housing though
capacity building to maximize Federal investments. The
Committee has provided $35,000,000 for capacity building. Set-
asides include $3,500,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
$2,000,000 for the National American Indian Council; $2,500,000
for the National Council of La Raza; $31,000,000 for LISC and
Enterprise Foundation; $4,000,000 for Habitat for Humanity
International.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,326,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,535,990,000
House allowance......................................... 1,535,990,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,511,190,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons
and families. The emergency grant is a formula funded grant
program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter
plus care programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance
grants provide Federal support to one of the Nation's most
vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in
addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of
homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of
Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help
those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward self-
sufficiency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,511,190,000 for homeless
assistance grants. This amount is $184,590,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level and $24,800,000 below the budget
request. Of the amount provided, $285,000,000 is to fund fully
Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual basis, $10,395,000 is
for technical assistance and data analysis, and $2,475,000 is
for the Department's working capital fund. Bill language also
is included that (1) requires not less than 30 percent of the
funds appropriated, excluding renewal costs, for permanent
housing; (2) requires the renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus
Care contracts on an annual basis if the contract meets certain
requirements; (3) requires a 25 percent match for social
services; and (4) requires all homeless funding recipients to
coordinate and integrate their programs with other mainstream
and targeted social programs. No funding is provided for the
Prisoner Re-Entry initiative due to budget constraints.
The Committee continues to be committed to ending chronic
homelessness over 10 years and supports the President's stated
goal of achieving this goal by 2012. To that end, the Committee
supports Federal, State, and local efforts to increase the
supply of permanent housing until the need of an estimated
150,000 units is met. Accordingly, the Committee again includes
bill language that requires the Department to spend a minimum
of 30 percent of funds appropriated under this account for
permanent housing. This set-aside has been critical in re-
balancing the homeless assistance account so that more
permanent housing is being developed. Prior to the
establishment of this set-aside, a small portion of homeless
assistance was being used for permanent housing. Research and
anecdotal results clearly indicate that permanent housing is a
critical component of ending homelessness among all types of
homeless people. Cities that have seized the opportunity to
develop more permanent housing have begun to see concrete
results in the form of less chronic homelessness, among
individuals and families with disabilities, veterans and
others.
To assist States and localities create more permanent
housing, the Committee supports the Department's request to use
technical assistance funding to address capital financing
issues.
The Committee appreciates the Department's sustained
commitment to meeting the needs of homeless families. Although
one-third of homeless people are members of homeless families,
about half of the persons served by HUD homeless programs are
members of homeless families. This demonstrates that, while the
Department has placed an emphasis on chronic homelessness, it
has continued to address the needs of homeless families.
The Committee also continues to support an effort begun in
2001 that charged the Department with collecting homeless data
through the implementation of a new Homeless Management
Information System [HMIS]. The Department has recently begun
collecting data on the Nation's homeless population and
developing annual reports through an Annual Homeless Assessment
Report [AHAR] through the HMIS. Further, the Committee supports
the Department's efforts to ensure participation of HMIS
through financing and other incentives. Nevertheless, the
Committee continues to believe that the Department must ensure
full participation by all grantees in the HMIS effort and
ensure that grantees and interested stakeholders fully
understand the importance of this effort and that adequate
protections are in place for homeless people. Due to the
Committee's continued interest in the Department's data
collection and analysis efforts, the Committee again directs
HUD to report on its progress by no later than March 23, 2007.
The Committee also reiterates the directive included in the
conference report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(House Report 108-792) regarding out-year costs of renewing
HUD's permanent housing programs. Therefore, the Department
should continue to include 5-year projects, on an annual basis,
for the cost of renewing the permanent housing component of the
Supportive Housing program and the Shelter Plus Care program in
its fiscal year 2008 budget justifications.
Housing Programs
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $734,580,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 545,490,000
House allowance......................................... 746,580,000
Committee recommendation................................ 750,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for housing for the elderly
under section 202. Under this program, the Department provides
capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $750,000,000
for the section 202 program, an increase of $15,420,000 over
the fiscal year 2006 level and an increase of $204,510,000 over
the budget request. Of these funds, $59,400,000 is for service
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate
service grants; up to $24,750,000 for the conversion of
projects to assisted living housing for substantial
rehabilitation an for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000
for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering
work, site control and planning activities. The Committee also
includes $1,980,000 for the Working Capital Fund.
According to a 2003 GAO report, section 202 has reached
only 8 percent of very low income elderly households. The
Committee believes that greater resources should be devoted to
the section 202 program and continues to encourage the
Department to make this program more of a priority, including
better targeting to extremely low-income elderly households.
Further, the Department needs to facilitate the construction of
section 202 projects. Finally, many of the existing 202 units
have serious repair needs that are not being adequately
addressed by the Department.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $236,610,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 118,800,000
House allowance......................................... 239,610,000
Committee recommendation................................ 240,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for
persons with disabilities. Up to 25 percent of the funding may
be made available for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $240,000,000
for the section 811 program, an increase of $3,390,000 over the
fiscal year 2006 level and $121,200,000 over the budget
request. HUD is directed to ensure that all tenant-based
assistance made available under this account shall remain
available for persons with disabilities upon turnover. The
Committee has limited the amount of funds that may be used for
incremental section 8 vouchers to $5,000,000. In addition,
section 811 funds may be used for inspections by HUD's Real
Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and for related inspection
activities. HUD is directed to submit a budget to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before funding any REAC
inspections. The Committee also includes $990,000 for the
Working Capitol Fund.
OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides amendment funding for housing
assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $24,750,000 for HUD-assisted,
State-aided, non-insured rental housing projects.
FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents
in excess of the established basic rents for section 236
projects. Subject to appropriations, HUD is authorized to
transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the
Flexible Subsidy Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve
as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will
continue to offset flexible subsidy outlays and other
discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing
projects. The language is designed to allow surplus funds in
excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project
owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and renovation
of projects.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $13,000,000
Budget request, 2007.................................... 16,000,000
House allowance......................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs
of administering the act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $16,000,000 to support the
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget
request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its
proposed fiscal year 2007 budget request, and encourages the
HUD to continue doing so in its future budgets. In addition,
the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its
expenditures for this program in accordance with the
appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act of 2000.
federal housing administration
mutual mortgage insurance program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006................................ $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $351,450,000
Budget estimate, 2007............................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000
House allowance..................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000
Committee recommendation............................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
general and special risk program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006................... $50,000,000 $35,000,000,000 $229,086,000 $8,712,000
Budget estimate, 2007.................. 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000
House allowance........................ 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000
Committee recommendation............... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized
programs, make up the other.
The amounts for administrative expenses are to be
transferred from appropriations made in the FHA program
accounts to the HUD ``Salaries and expenses'' accounts.
Additionally, funds are also appropriated for administrative
contract expenses for FHA activities.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included the following amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct
loans of $50,000,000, and an appropriation of $351,450,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $35,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $229,086,000
for administrative expenses, of which $347,490,000 shall be
transferred to HUD ``Salaries and Expenses'', up to $3,960,000
shall be transferred to the Office of the Inspector General,
and $23,562,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital
Fund.
In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct
loan programs in 2007 for multifamily bridge loans and single
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained
commitments for permanent financing from another lender.
Purchase money mortgages will enable governmental and nonprofit
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
HUD has submitting a number of initiatives designed to
reform FHA mortgage insurance and allow HUD to begin to regain
some market share while also attracting borrowers with positive
credit ratings. In part, the intent of the legislation is to
balance the adverse pool of borrowers who have come to
characterize the FHA MMIF with FHA homeowners with better
credit ratings and who pose less risk. Unfortunately, it is not
clear that the legislation includes the necessary reforms that
will allow HUD to compete in the housing marketplace without
being subject to increased financial risk to the FHA MMIF as
well as significant fraud and abuse. For example, HUD still
intends to pursue products such as the Zero Downpayment program
which would allow a homebuyer to use FHA mortgage insurance to
purchase a home without any downpayment.
As noted last year, the Zero Downpayment program, where all
fees and costs are rolled into the mortgage, is a major policy
change that generates receipts but poses substantial financial
risks to the FHA Single Family program--this is a 100 percent
loan guarantee where realtors and bankers have no disincentive
against placing high-risk families in homes. New homeowners
also would have no stake in these homes in the event of
financial hardship as they also would have limited or no
ability to pay for any big ticket costs such as a failed
furnace or leaky roof. From a historical perspective, a similar
policy almost bankrupted FHA in the late 1980s and economically
hurt neighborhoods because large numbers of defaults in
marginal neighborhoods often result in diminished property
values for the entire neighborhood. Recent audits of the FHA
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund have indicated that these
policies likely would undermine the long-term financial
soundness of the fund. For example, the HUD IG audit of FHA's
financial statements for fiscal years 2004 and 2003 demonstrate
a substantial increase in the default rate over the last 5
years from 2.99 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 6.9 percent in
fiscal year 2004. Moreover, claims have increased from some
$5,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to some $8,500,000,000 in
fiscal year 2004, a 54 percent increase while insurance-in-
force decreased 13 percent to $430,000,000 during the same
period. FHA is clearly becoming a lender of last resort, taking
on the most risky mortgages, especially those likely to
default.
More recently, FHA's share of the market dropped 40 percent
in fiscal year 2005--FHA's home sales were 4.3 percent for
fiscal year 2005 compared with 7.6 percent in fiscal year 2004.
In addition, home sales for the entire market were up 7 percent
in fiscal year 2005. FHA endorsements dropped 46.7 percent in
fiscal year 2005 and insurance-in-force dropped 13 percent in
fiscal year 2005. Default rates increased to 6.36 percent in
fiscal year 2005, compared to 6.13 percent in fiscal year 2004.
While the Committee supports reform, it must be handled
carefully. There must be controls in the law that minimize
fraud and risk of loss. The Committee supports a balancing of
the risk based on the creditworthiness of the homebuyer.
However, there needs to be firm benchmarks and guidelines that
ensure HUD does not remain the lender of last resort where its
FHA mortgage pools are primarily made up of the most adverse
credit risks in the marketplace. As a result, the Committee is
very concerned that the proposed legislation does not include
the necessary safeguards. In addition, the Committee is
concerned that homebuyers with sub-prime loans will seek to
refinance their debt through FHA. Clearly, these homeowners
represent the greatest risk for default and loss to the MMIF
and HUD is directed to develop safeguards to limit exposure of
financial risk.
The Committee is disappointed with HUD's endorsement of the
Nehemiah program whereby certain nonprofits help homebuyers
with downpayment assistance where the downpayment assistance
does not meet FHA requirements of being a ``boni-fide gift''.
In these cases, the nonprofit is being reimbursed by the
property seller. A recent GAO audit was very critical of this
practice, concluding that ``Nehemiah'' assistance from a seller
financed nonprofit raised the claim rate 81 percent relative to
similar loans with no assistance.
The Committee again advises that HUD should assist in the
education of potential homebuyers who plan to use FHA mortgage
insurance as part of the purchase process. While the
requirements for an appraisal are clear, HUD needs to educate
homebuyers regarding the value of requiring a home inspection
before a purchase is complete. In too many cases, homebuyers
waive this option, thus exposing them to unforeseen and
unexpected physical deficiencies in the purchased home. This
especially is troubling with moderate- and low-income
homebuyers who barely have enough funds to close on the house.
Without a home inspection, these purchasers may find themselves
responsible for such high-cost items as a new roof, furnace or
other significant structural liabilities. In these cases, the
cost to repair the home and pay for the mortgage may far exceed
the financial ability of the homebuyer, thus putting the home
at risk of foreclosure.
The Committee is deeply concerned with the proposed
increase in the annual premium charged for most multifamily
loan guarantees in the fiscal year 2007 request. The stated
rationale for this substantial premium increase is to offset
administrative costs associated with these programs. This
appears disingenuous since the CBO has scored the net increase
of revenue at $70,000,000. However no detailed explanation has
been given for the amount of this premium increase, its likely
adverse effect on loan volume and affordable rental housing
production, or the resulting rent increases necessary to cover
the cost of the higher premium payments. Moreover, the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990 specifically mandates that
administrative costs associated with loan guarantee programs be
paid from discretionary appropriations rather than being
reflected in the credit programs financing.
The Committee sees no merit in the administration's
argument that these mortgage insurance premiums should be
raised because these programs have not clearly demonstrated
effectiveness in meeting affordable housing goals. Raising
program costs can only diminish the contribution of these
programs in expanding lower cost housing opportunities. In the
face of the growing nationwide shortage of affordable housing,
imposing further constraints on FHA rental housing development
makes little sense. Further, the Committee believes that this
action will drive the better quality projects to other sources
of financing, thus causing an increase in the loss ratio for
the FHA program in the long term.
The proposed mortgage insurance premium increase reverses
the previous policy of the administration to work toward the
lowest premium allowable while still enabling FHA to offer this
rental housing financing at no cost to the taxpayers. For the
largest moderate income rental housing development program
offered by FHA, the proposed premium represents more than a 71
percent increase in annual cost. Very substantial premium
increases would also be levied against the FHA nursing home and
hospital financing programs.
Given the very substantial size of the premium increase and
the abrupt reversal of the underlying policy of the Department
in setting these premiums, the Committee believes strongly that
full notice and comment rulemaking would be the only
appropriate mechanism to pursue prior to implementing this
proposal. The failure of the Department to do this represents a
serious breach with congressional policy. Such administrative
procedures would accord FHA industry partners, including
lenders, developers, and builders, an opportunity to comment on
the proposal. It would also permit a full assessment of the
likely impact of such a premium increase on the volume of
multifamily rental housing development, and the consequential
effects of higher financing costs on rents borne by moderate
income residents.
Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the
appropriate Committees of Congress a thorough assessment of the
potential adverse effects of the proposed premiums structure,
including the evaluation of alternatives such as utilizing
negative subsidy and program revenues to cover administrative
costs, before proceeding with implementation of the fee
increases proposed in the budget. The Committee further directs
that prior to increasing the mortgage insurance premiums the
formula used for determining credit subsidy should be reviewed
and revised to more heavily weight experience since 1990 when
improvements in underwriting were implemented by FHA. The
current formula appears to be extremely conservative in the
context of recent experience, and, we believe the current
mortgage insurance premium levels would generate significant
negative credit subsidy without the proposed increase.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,700,000
Budget estimate, 2007:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
100,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,700,000
House allowance:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
100,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,700,000
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
100,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,700,000
program description
The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal
Housing Administration, the Rural Housing Service, or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of
mortgage-backed securities of $100,000,000,000. This amount is
the same level as proposed by the budget request and
$100,000,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 level. The
Committee also has included $10,700,000 for administrative
expenses, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $55,787,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 68,360,000
House allowance......................................... 55,787,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
program description
Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2007. This amount is
$4,213,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$8,360,000 below the budget request. Of this funding,
$5,000,000 is for the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in
Housing [PATH] program. Language is included to ensure the
funding of existing cooperative agreements in fiscal year 2006.
The Committee expects the PATH program to continue its cold
climate housing research with the Cold Climate Housing Research
Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Committee also supports the
continuing research on promising technologies for the
manufactured housing industry.
In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs,
the Office of Policy Development and Research is denied
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $45,540,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 44,550,000
House allowance......................................... 44,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,550,000
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation provides $44,550,000, of which
$19,800,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $24,759,000 is for the fair housing
initiatives program [FHIP]. The total is $990,000 more than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget
request.
The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental,
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $150,480,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 114,840,000
House allowance......................................... 149,840,000
Committee recommendation................................ 152,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980's. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $152,000,000 for lead-based paint
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2007.
This amount is $37,160,000 more than the budget request and
$1,520,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Of
this amount, HUD may use up to $9,000,000 for the Healthy Homes
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses.
The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the lead hazard
reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.
As previously discussed, there remains significant lead
risks in privately owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized
low-income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million
children under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from
lead poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic,
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families.
In the United States, children from poor families are eight
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income
families. Nevertheless, the risks associated with lead-based
paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next decade.
As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program
is designed to target funding to major urban areas where the
lead hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is
greatest. Qualified applicants are identified by the Secretary
as having the highest number of pre-1940 units of rental
housing and a disproportionately high number of documented
cases of lead-poisoned children. At least 90 percent of funds
must be used for abatement and interim control of lead-based
paint hazards. Further, the program targets abatement to units
that serve low-income families. As a condition of assistance,
each applicant shall submit a detailed plan for use of funds
that demonstrates sufficient capacity acceptable to the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The plans should
identify units with the most significant risk, and should
include strategies to reduce the risk of lead hazards and to
mobilize public and private resources. The Committee fully
expects that this program will be administered in a manner
consistent with the guidelines and criteria used in the fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 funding cycles.
The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through
publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian
FHA GNMA CDBG Title VI housing Native
Appropriation funds funds funds transfer block Hawaiian Total
grant loan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.............................................. 573,210 562,400 10,700 750 150 250 35 1,147,495
Budget estimate, 2007............................................. 594,000 556,776 10,593 ........ 148 248 35 1,157,800
House allowance................................................... 493,240 556,776 10,700 ........ 149 248 35 1,061,148
Committee recommendation.......................................... 594,000 556,776 10,700 750 149 248 35 1,156,658
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The ``Salaries and expenses'' account finances all salaries
and related expenses associated with administering the programs
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These
include the following activities:
Housing and Mortgage Credit Programs.--This activity
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales,
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement
procedures.
Community Planning and Development Programs.--Funds in this
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to
administer community planning and development programs.
Equal Opportunity and Research Programs.--This activity
includes salaries and related expenses associated with
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
Departmental Management, Legal, and Audit Services.--This
activity includes a variety of general functions required for
the Department's overall administration and management. These
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel,
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management,
contracting and procurement, and office services.
Field Direction and Administration.--This activity includes
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's
field offices, as well as administrative support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,156,658,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $9,163,000 more than
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,142,000 less than the
budget request. The appropriation includes the requested amount
of $550,766,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal
Housing Administration, $10,700,000 transferred from the
Government National Mortgage Association, $247,500 from the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, $148,500 from the
Native American Housing Block Grant, and $35,000 from the
Native Hawaiian Housing Program as well as $750,000 from the
Community Development Loan Guarantee program, which the
administration sought to eliminate.
The Committee remains concerned about HUD's ability to
administer its programs and place staff where most needed.
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring
within the Department, including justifications for any
significant increase in FTEs for any particular office or
activity.
In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive
service employees. The Committee understands that the
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule.
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain
experience and advancement.
The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly
reports on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. These reports shall include a list of all HUD-
related trips, the names of all staff on each trip, and all
costs, including the individual costs of lodging, food,
transportation and any other costs.
Office of Inspector General
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds by
Appropriation transfer Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006............................................ $81,180,000 $23,760,000 $104,940,000
Budget estimate, 2007........................................... 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000
House allowance................................................. 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 83,240,000 23,760,000 115,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation will finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an overall funding level of
$115,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This
amount is $10,060,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and $8,000,000 above the budget request. This funding level
includes $23,760,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The
Committee commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in
reducing waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $195,030,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 219,780,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 219,780,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized
basis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $219,780,000 for the working
capital fund for fiscal year 2007. These funds are the same as
the budget request and $24,750,000 over the fiscal year 2006
level. This fund is needed to enhance efficient use of
appropriated funds and improve budget projections and needs for
submission of the Committees on Appropriations.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 62,000,000
House allowance......................................... 62,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 67,600,000
program description
This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $67,600,000 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $5,600,000 above
the budget request and $7,600,000 more than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief
description follows.
Sec. 301. This section promotes the refinancing of certain
housing bonds.
Sec. 302. This section clarifies a limitation on use of
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 303. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA
funding for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 304. This section clarifies housing issue in Michigan.
Sec. 305. This section requires HUD to award funds on a
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 306. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative
expenses.
Sec. 307. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set
out in the budget justification.
Sec. 308. This section clarifies expenditure authority for
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 309. This section requires HUD to submit certain
additional information as part of its annual budget
justifications.
Sec. 310. This section requires quarterly reports on all
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD
programs.
Sec. 311. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 312. This section makes a number of corrections to the
award of HOPWA funding.
Sec. 313. This section requires HUD to submit annual
reports on the number and cost of HUD-assisted units. The
Committee is concerned that HUD's property disposition program
is not adequately committed to preserving the affordability of
formerly subsidized units, and directs HUD to establish and
submit to the Committee workable criteria for ensuring the
maintenance of project-based section 8 wherever possible. The
Committee also expects HUD to improve its consultation and
coordination with units of local government and residents. HUD
is reminded that it should use its discretionary preservation
authority for the purpose of preserving affordability.
Sec. 314. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal
year 2008 budget justifications according to congressional
requirements.
Sec. 315. This section requires vouchers for non-elderly
disabled families to be renewed, to the extent practicable, to
non-elderly disabled families.
Sec. 316. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska,
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006.
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are
required to establish advisory boards that include public
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 317. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the
assisted tenants.
Sec. 318. This section provides allocation requirements for
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block
Grant program.
Sec. 319. This section requires vouchers for family
unification to be renewed, to the extent practicable, for the
family unification.
Sec. 320. This section reforms certain section 8 rent
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
Sec. 321. This section expands the availability of Reverse
Equity Mortgage without limit and requires HUD to consider the
number of HECM mortgages that are already insured in a
geographic region.
The Committee is concerned over what appears to be
excessive fees that are charged to HECM loans. The combined
fees range from $8,000 to $17,000, and are 2 to 4.5 times
higher than forward loans. The most troubling fee is the
origination fee. HUD allows origination fees of 2 percent of
the loan amount or $2,000, whichever is higher. However,
origination costs do not rise proportionally with the home's
value for loans above a certain level. In addition, if there
were an increase in HECM loan limits, the fees seniors pay may
be even higher. The Committee also directs HUD and GAO to
review the HECM program with particular emphasis on the
financial risk to FHA and the homeowner if Congress were to
raise the HECM loan limits. This report should include an
assessment of the Fees that are charged in the HECM program as
to whether the fees are fair and consistent with requirements
of the HECM program. The report is due within 6 months of
enactment.
Sec. 322. This section extends mark-to-market until 2011.
Sec. 323. This section prohibits HUD from insuring
mortgages that are part of a nehemial program.
Sec. 324. This section allows PHAs to use their capital
funds for central office costs.
Sec. 325. This section moves the date for subsidy
reductions for PHAs to January 1, 2007. This section also
allows operating subsidies to be reduced by 5 percent during
calendar year 2007.
Sec. 326. This section makes reforms to the tax credit
program as it applies to section 8.
Sec. 327. This section extends HOPE VI until September 30,
2007.
TITLE IV
THE JUDICIARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Established under Article III of the Constitution, the
judicial branch of Government is a separate but equal branch.
The Federal Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United
States Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts,
Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims and
several other entities and programs. The organization of the
judiciary, the district and circuit boundaries, the places of
holding court, and the number of Federal judges are legislated
by the Congress and signed into law by the President.
The Committee's recommended funding levels support the
Federal judiciary's role of providing equal justice under the
law and include sufficient funds to support this critical
mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of
judges and support staff and the operation and security of our
Nation's courts.
The judicial branch is reminded that it, too, is subject to
the same funding constraints facing the executive and
legislative branches and continues to urge the Federal
judiciary to devote its resources primarily to the retention of
staff. Further, the judiciary is encouraged to contain
controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other non-
essential expenses.
In addition, the judiciary is reminded that section 705 of
the accompanying act applies to the judicial as well as the
executive branch.
Supreme Court of the United States
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $60,143,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 63,405,000
House allowance......................................... 63,405,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,405,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices
appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United
States, one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United
States. The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the
Federal court system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,405,000
for the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of
operating the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building
and grounds. The recommendation is $3,262,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request.
CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,568,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 12,959,000
House allowance......................................... 12,959,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,959,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,959,000
for personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court
building and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of
the Capitol. The recommendation is $7,391,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request.
The Committee has provided the requested funds to complete
the Supreme Court's building modernization project and the
necessary renovations to the East and West Conference Room
ceilings. The Committee has also provided the requested funds
to begin needed repairs and renovations to the Court's roof
system. Because this project will be phased over 5 years, the
Committee directs the Court to report to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations as the Court becomes aware of any
changes in schedule or budgetary needs.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $23,780,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 26,300,000
House allowance......................................... 26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,273,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
was established under Article III of the Constitution on
October 1, 1982. The court was formed by the merger of the
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the
appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. The
court consists of twelve judges who are appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Judges
are appointed to the court under Article III of the
Constitution of the United States.
The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a
variety of subject matter, including international trade,
government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from
the United States Government, Federal personnel, and veterans'
benefits. Appeals to the court come from all Federal district
courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United
States Court of International Trade, and the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. The court also takes appeals of
certain administrative agencies' decisions, including the Merit
Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract Appeals, the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark
Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United States
International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of the
United States Congress and the Government Accountability Office
Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewed by the court.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,273,000.
The recommendation is $1,493,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $1,027,000 below the budget request.
Of the amount provided, the Committee has funded the
requested increase for disaster recovery of information, but
denies the program increase requests for information technology
upgrades and the retrofitting of courtrooms to provide enhanced
technological capabilities. The Committee notes that the
Federal Circuit currently has appropriate technology upgrades
in one of its three courtrooms, which meets existing standards
enacted by the Judicial Conference.
U.S. Court of International Trade
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $15,345,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 16,182,000
House allowance......................................... 16,182,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,182,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Court of International Trade, located in
New York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court
has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions
brought against the United States, its agencies and officers,
and certain civil actions brought by the United States, arising
out of import transactions and the administration and
enforcement of the Federal customs and international trade
laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,182,000.
The recommendation is $837,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and the same as the budget request.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,308,345,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,687,244,000
House allowance......................................... 4,556,114,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,583,360,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide
total funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and
Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of
judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating
costs of appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and
probation and pretrial services offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$4,583,360,000. The recommendation is $275,015,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 funding level and $103,884,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee has adequately funded this account to enable
the courts to meet their workload demands. As previously
stated, the Committee urges the Judicial Conference to make the
retention of personnel its top priority. The Committee supports
the Federal judiciary sharing its case management electronic
case filing system at the State level and urges the judiciary
to undertake a study of whether sharing such technology,
including electronic billing processes, is a viable option.
Southwest Border.--The Committee is concerned about the
impact that increased immigration funding and enforcement
activities are having on the Federal judiciary's caseload and
their ability to handle such a dramatic increase in filings. At
present, the criminal cases filed in the five districts along
the Southwest border account for nearly one-third of criminal
cases nationwide. Since 2001, approximately 1,200 border agents
have been added along the border with Mexico, resulting in a
significant increase in caseload and workload levels. The
judiciary plays an integral role in the Nation's homeland
security efforts, and the Committee commends the numerous
judges and staff who have ensured the continuing success of
this vital piece of the Nation's border security strategy.
Because the border courts remain critically understaffed, the
Committee has provided $20,371,000, as requested, for
magistrate judges and critical staff positions for those
districts located along the Southwest border. The Committee
directs the Administrative Office to include a plan for the
hiring of these positions in its fiscal year 2007 financial
plan and to keep the Committee apprised of the number of
positions actually brought on board along the Southwest border
throughout fiscal year 2007.
Staffing Formulas.--The Committee is aware that the
Administrative Office utilizes a sophisticated staffing formula
to determine the staffing needs for the local courts. Due to
the varied nature of caseload levels throughout the Nation,
courts maintain different requirements for staffing. While the
Southwest Border Courts have seen the greatest increase in
funds allocated over the past several fiscal years, the gap
between their funding allotment and their actual workload
growth remains substantially greater when compared to the
courts throughout the rest of the Nation. For example, during
several of the past few fiscal years, supplemental funding from
the administrative office and Congress has been required to
meet the unique needs of the Southwest Border Courts. This
consistent need for additional urgently needed funding in this
one region demonstrates, at a minimum, the need for a thorough
review of the staffing formulas used to determine local court
needs. The Committee recognizes that the formulas currently
employed to determine staffing needs place significant weight
on the work requirements of the local courts' districts.
However, due to the increasing gap between workload and
staffing levels, the Committee is concerned that the current
formula does not adequately address the differing staffing
requirements that face courts located along the Southwest
border. As such, the Administrative Office will report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 120
days after the date of enactment of this act on what steps it
has taken to ensure that its staffing formulas reflect these
changing trends in caseload activity. The Committee also
directs the administrative office to ensure that the staffing
formula ensures that adequate resources are being directed to
the Southwest border and particularly to the Probation and
Pretrial Services program.
Courthouse Construction.--The Committee is aware that the
judiciary's self-imposed moratorium on courthouse construction
projects ends September 30, 2006. The Committee notes that the
judiciary continues to face rising rent costs that are, in
part, a result of past courthouse construction projects that
were not adequately reduced in scope. As such, the Committee
strongly urges the Judicial Conference to weigh carefully its
need for more space to adjudicate cases against the Federal
judiciary's rent needs. The Committee encourages the Judicial
Conference to ensure adequate checks are in place to guarantee
that future construction requests and projects are subjected to
the highest standards of cost-efficiencies. The June, 2006, GAO
report entitled, ``Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to
New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs Require Better
Tracking and Management'' notes that there are currently no
incentives for district and circuit courts to make more
efficient use of their space. The Committee is concerned that
such a lack of incentives has caused the judicial branch to pay
rent for more space than is necessary. As such, the
Administrative Office is directed to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this act on steps that have been
and are being taken to encourage more efficient use of space by
district and circuit courts. Further, the Committee encourages
the Administrative Office to continue to work with the General
Services Administration to ensure fair and accurate rent
charges and to pursue corrections to any inequities.
Carryover Funds.--Due to unique circumstances, the
judiciary reported significant carryover funds for fiscal year
2005 and projects more carryover in funding for fiscal year
2006. The Committee is concerned that the administrative office
has not first used these carryover funds to offset projected
decreases in fee collections and other projected needs and has,
instead, used this funding to augment existing programs. This
has resulted in an increase in the judiciary's uncontrollable
costs, unnecessary funding requests and greater baseline needs.
As such, the Administrative Office is directed to ensure that
current and projected funding needs are met first with
carryover funds before enhancing any program. The Committee
directs the Administrative Office to separately include in
future financial plans, for approval by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, all sources of carryover funds
and their desired application.
VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,795,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,952,000
House allowance......................................... 3,952,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,952,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Enacted by The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program is a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a
perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims that
threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines
nationwide. The statute's primary intention is the creation of
a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism that ensures a no-fault
compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by
certain covered vaccines. This program protects the
availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a
substantial number of claims from the tort arena.
Not only did this act create a special fund to pay
judgments awarded under the act, but it also created the Office
of Special Masters [OSM] within the United States Court of
Federal Claims to hear vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates
that up to eight special masters may be appointed for this
purpose. The special masters expenditures are reimbursed to the
judiciary for vaccine injury cases from a special fund set up
under the Vaccine Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,952,000.
The recommendation is $157,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and consistent with the budget request.
Defender Services
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $709,830,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 803,879,000
House allowance......................................... 750,033,000
Committee recommendation................................ 761,051,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18
U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who
cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense
services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint
counsel from Federal public and community defender
organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established
by the court. The Defender Services program helps to maintain
public confidence in the Nation's commitment to equal justice
under the law and ensures the successful operation of the
constitutionally based adversary system of justice by which
Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed rights are
enforced.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $761,051,000.
The recommendation is $51,221,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $42,828,000 below the budget request.
While the Committee has provided sufficient funds to enable
the Defenders Services program to continue to provide timely
and quality counsel services, the Committee is concerned about
recurring projected shortfalls in the Defender Services
account. To the extent that the other salaries and expense
accounts within the judiciary title must absorb certain
mandatory adjustments to base, the Committee directs the
Defender Services program to treat its Federal Defender
Organizations in the same manner. The Committee has denied all
program increase requests for this account and directs the
Administrative Office to ensure that all resources provided are
first used to ensure the timely payment of panel attorneys.
Panel Attorney Pay Rates.--The Committee has included
funding to annualize the fiscal year 2006 pay adjustment for
capital and non-capital panel attorneys but denies all requests
for cost of living adjustments and pay raises for panel
attorneys for fiscal year 2007. The Committee notes that future
cost of living adjustment requests should not be presented as
adjustments to base, but should be requested as a program
increase.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $60,705,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 63,079,000
House allowance......................................... 63,079,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,079,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances
of grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and
land commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily
upon the volume and the length of jury trials demanded by
parties to both civil and criminal actions and the number of
grand juries being convened by the courts at the request of the
United States Attorneys.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,079,000.
The recommendation is $2,374,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and reflects the judiciary's reestimate of fiscal
year 2007 requirements.
Court Security
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $368,280,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 410,334,000
House allowance......................................... 400,334,000
Committee recommendation................................ 397,737,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983
and funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of
protective guard services, and the procurement, installation,
and maintenance of security systems and equipment for United
States courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court
operations, including building access control, inspection of
mail and packages, directed security patrols, perimeter
security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other
similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of the
Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-
702).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $397,737,000.
The recommendation is $29,457,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $12,597,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is concerned about the security of the United
States Courthouses and is committed to ensuring the Nation's
Federal appellate and district courts possess adequate security
measures. Sufficient funding has been provided to retain and
hire all requested court security officers for fiscal year
2007. While the Committee has provided funding for the digital
video recording initiative, the Committee is concerned about
the significant costs associated with procuring these systems.
The Committee notes that the United States Marshall's Service
has indicated that the vast majority of digital video recorders
can be purchased for substantially less than expected and urges
the Administrative Office to work with the United States
Marshall's Service to ensure optimum cost efficiencies.
The Committee has limited the judiciary's payments to the
Federal Protective Service [FPS] to no more than $66,900,000
and directs the Administrative Office to obtain regular
notifications from the FPS on any changes in funding
requirements.
Judicial Facility Security Program.--As provided in bill
language, the United States Marshals Service [USMS] is
responsible for administering the Judicial Facility Security
Program consistent with standards and guidelines agreed to by
the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
and the Attorney General. However, court security funding is
appropriated by Congress directly to the judiciary which
provides an important stewardship role, including financial and
program oversight. While court security funding is subsequently
transferred to the USMS, which is responsible for program
administration, the Committee expects full cooperation from the
USMS as the judiciary conducts the fiduciary and program
oversight responsibilities pertaining to this funding.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $69,559,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 75,333,000
House allowance......................................... 73,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 74,333,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts
was created in 1939 by an Act of Congress. It serves the
Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to
provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous
services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and
staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States
and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies
as well as applicable Federal statutes and regulations. The AO
is the focal point for communication and coordination within
the judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, and the
public on behalf of the judiciary.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,333,000.
This recommendation is $4,774,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $1,000,000 below the budget request.
Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program.--As established
in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations act, the Edwin L. Nelson
Local Initiative Program made grants available to local courts
to develop and implement information technology solutions for
the unique problems they face. Such grants ensure greater
flexibility, access to funds, information sharing and input
into the various obstacles that must be overcome to produce a
more automated and efficient Federal judiciary. The Committee
urges the AO to continue to work with and provide adequate
resources to the local courts for this purpose.
Federal Judicial Center
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $22,127,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 23,787,000
House allowance......................................... 23,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,390,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC,
improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court
administration through education for judges and staff and
research, evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts
and the Judicial Conference. The Center's responsibilities
include educating judges and other judicial branch personnel
about legal developments and efficient litigation management
and court administration. Additionally, the Center also
analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures
and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of the methods of
best practice.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,390,000.
The recommendation is $1,263,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $397,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has included all requested funds in the
Center's adjustment to base and half the funds requested for
education, research and technology enhancements. The Committee
directs the Federal Judicial Center to keep the Committee
apprised of staff brought on board throughout fiscal year 2007.
Judicial Retirement Funds
PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $40,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 58,300,000
House allowance......................................... 58,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,300,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The funds in this account cover the estimated future
benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and
magistrate judges, claims court judges, and spouses and
dependent children of deceased judicial officers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,300,000
for payments to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund and the
Claims Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is
$17,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and
identical to the budget request.
United States Sentencing Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $14,256,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 15,740,000
House allowance......................................... 15,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,340,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Sentencing Commission establishes,
reviews and revises sentencing guidelines, policies and
practices for the Federal criminal justice system. The
Commission is also required to monitor the operation of the
guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the
Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,340,000.
The recommendation is $1,084,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $400,000 below the budget request.
Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary
The Committee recommends the following administrative
provisions for the judiciary.
Section 401 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the
employment of experts and consultant services.
Section 402 allows the judiciary, subject to the
Committee's reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5
percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the
amount that can be transferred into any one appropriation.
Section 403 limits official reception and representation
expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United
States to no more than $11,000.
Section 404 requires the Administrative Office to submit an
annual financial plan for the judiciary.
Section 405 allows for a salary adjustment for Justices and
judges.
Section 406 grants the judicial branch the same tenant
alteration authorities as the executive branch.
Section 407 prohibits any judge from being entitled to sole
use of a courtroom and requires courtrooms to be scheduled
based on the needs of the circuit and district courts. This is
intended solely to address circumstances where courtrooms are
not in full use and where the sharing of a courtroom will help
reduce an overburdened judicial docket.
TITLE V
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
PRESIDENT
Compensation of the President
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $450,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 450,000
House allowance......................................... 450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 450,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $184,252,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides for the compensation of the
President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3
U.S.C. 102.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for
Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance
of $50,000. This is the same as the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level and the same as the budget estimate. The expense account
is for official use as authorized by title 3 of U.S. Code and
is not considered taxable to the President. The bill specifies
that any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent
with 31 U.S.C. 1552.
White House Office
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $53,292,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 51,952,000
House allowance......................................... 51,952,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,952,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $184,252,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office
provides staff assistance and administrative services for the
direct support of the President. The office also serves as the
President's representative before the media. In accordance with
3 U.S.C. 105, the office also supports and assists the
activities of the First Lady.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,952,000
for White House Office Salaries and Expenses. The
recommendation is $1,340,000 less than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee has rejected the administration's request to
include many of the offices under the Executive Office of the
President under a single, consolidated account. The Committee
objects to the overall proposal since it would undermine the
ability of the Congress to exercise adequate oversight
regarding how these funds are expended. Nevertheless, the
Committee has incorporated the responsibilities of the Office
of Policy Development [OPD] into the ``Salaries and Expenses''
account of the White House Office. This represents some
$3,385,000 of funding for OPD. The Committee agrees with the
administration that this consolidation is a logical approach
that will allow the White House to better manage its resources.
The Committee includes $1,500,000 for the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board as a separate account.
The Executive Office of the President submitted its fiscal
year 2007 budget request later than other agencies. This delay
made it difficult for the Committee to begin its work. The
Committee encourages the Executive Office of the President to
submit its budget justification within a few days of the
publication of the President's budget. The Committee directs
the Executive Office of the President to include detailed
budget information for the Civil Liberties Oversight Board in
next year's justification.
Executive Residence at the White House
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $12,312,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 12,041,000
House allowance......................................... 12,041,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,041,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
These funds provide for the care, maintenance, repair,
alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning,
heating, and lighting, of the White House and the official and
ceremonial functions of the President.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,041,000
for the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee
recommendation is $271,000 less than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level and is equal to certain assumptions in the budget
estimate. In particular, the administration's request includes
many of the accounts under the Executive Office of the
President under a single, consolidated account, including this
account. The Committee objects to the overall proposal since it
would undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise
adequate oversight regarding how these funds are expended. The
accompanying bill also continues certain restrictions on
reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive Residence that
were enacted for fiscal year 2004.
WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,683,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 1,600,000
House allowance......................................... 1,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,600,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds the repair, alteration, and improvement
of the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate
account was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and
track expenditures for the capital improvement projects at the
Executive Residence at the White House.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000 for
White House Repair and Restoration, the same amount as assumed
in the overall budget request and a reduction of $83,000 from
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Council of Economic Advisers
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 4,002,000
House allowance......................................... 4,002,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,002,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts for the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national
economy and its various segments, advises the President on
economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth
and stability, appraises economic programs and policies of the
Federal Government, and assists in the preparation of the
annual Economic Report of the President to Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,002,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This
amount is the same as the amount assumed in the overall budget
request and is $2,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
Office of Policy Development
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,465,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 3,385,000
House allowance......................................... 3,385,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,385,000
\1\ This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Policy Development supports the National
Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council, in carrying
out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President
in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of
economic and domestic policy. The Office of Policy Development
also provides support for other domestic policy development and
implementation activities as directed by the President.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not recommend funds for the Office of
Policy Development as an independent office and has merged the
office and funds into the White House Office. In particular,
the administration's request includes many of the accounts
under the Executive Office of the President under a single,
consolidated account, including this account. While the
Committee objects to the overall proposal since it would
undermine the ability of the Congress to exercise adequate
oversight regarding how these funds are expended, the Committee
believes this merger will facilitate a better use of these
funds while preserving adequate oversight of their use.
National Security Council
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,618,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 8,405,000
House allowance......................................... 8,405,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,405,000
\1\ The budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Security Council advises the President in
integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating
to the national security.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,405,000 for
the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council
[NSC]. This amount is the same as assumed in the budget request
and $213,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Office of Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $88,429,000
Budget estimate, 2007 \1\............................... 102,417,000
House allowance......................................... 91,393,000
Committee recommendation................................ 91,393,000
\1\ This budget proposes a consolidation of most accounts of the White
House of $184,252,000, including this account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Administration's mission is to provide high-
quality, cost-effective administrative services to the
Executive Office of the President. These services, defined by
Executive Order 12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel,
library and records services, information management systems
support, and general office services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $91,393,000 to the Office of
Administration for fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2,964,000
over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and a decrease of
$11,024,000 below the budget request.
The Committee includes the funding levels for the Office of
Administration activities at the proposed levels included in
its budget justifications. In addition to the recommended level
of funding, the Office of Administration receives
reimbursements for information management support and general
office services.
Office of Management and Budget
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006 \1\................................ $76,161,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 68,780,000
House allowance......................................... 76,185,000
Committee recommendation................................ 76,185,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] assists the
President in the discharge of his budgetary, management, and
other executive responsibilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,185,000
for the Office of Management and Budget which is $24,000 more
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $7,405,000 above
the budget request.
In 2005, the Federal Government failed to meet Executive
order and statutory energy savings goals for the first time in
more than a decade. Within 120 days after enactment of this
act, the Committee directs the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, with assistance from appropriate Federal
agencies, to issue a report to the Committees on Appropriations
regarding the administration's and OMB's plans to monitor,
measure, and increase Federal agency performance and
participation in energy and environmental management. The
Committee is particularly interested in products and services
that guarantee energy and taxpayer savings, that measure
performance, and that involve public/private partnerships. A
specific focus of the report should include possible statutory
obstacles.
Office of National Drug Control Policy
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $26,639,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 23,309,000
House allowance......................................... 26,928,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP],
established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and
reauthorized by Public Law 105-277, is charged with developing
policies, objectives and priorities for the National Drug
Control Program. In addition, ONDCP administers the Counterdrug
Technology Assessment Center, the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, the Drug Free Communities Program and several other
related initiatives.
This account provides funding for personnel compensation,
travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for
general policy research to support the formulation of the
National Drug Control Strategy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,500,000
for ONDCP's salaries and expenses. This amount is $11,809,000
below the budget request and $15,139,000 below the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
The Committee is extremely displeased with the performance
of ONDCP staff regarding their communication with the Committee
and their responsiveness to congressional inquiries. ONDCP's
lethargy and the inadequate information provided severely
impacts the ability of the Committee to conduct its oversight
and make budgetary decisions in a timely manner. This kind of
unresponsiveness on the part of ONDCP results in an unnecessary
waste of time and energy; numerous follow up communications are
required in almost every instance. The Committee is
particularly concerned that ONDCP has attempted to prevent the
Committee from meeting with the directors of ONDCP programs.
Therefore the Committee has reduced the salaries and expenses
budget to more closely reflect actual performance.
The principal purpose of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] is to establish priorities,
objectives, and policies for the Nation's drug control program.
The Committee is concerned that the overall organization of
ONDCP is ineffective and must be improved. In fact, 6 years ago
an independent review found weaknesses in ONDCP management and
organization, unfortunately these problems persist today. The
Committee believes an investigation into funding allocations
and expenditures, as well as the use of resources is warranted.
The Committee believes an independent review of the overall
organization and management of grants and funding systems would
be beneficial to ONDCP and the Congress. Such an evaluation may
provide insight into changes and improvements that could make
ONDCP more effective in the future. Therefore, the Committee
has allocated funding for a study by the National Academy of
Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct a review of
organization and management. In addition, the Committee also
requests that the Government Accountability Office [GAO] review
the grant management systems, and other funding systems--
emphasizing the criteria and methodology used to award and
distribute funds. The Committee is aware and supportive of
GAO's impending review of the Drug-Free Communities program,
and recommends that GAO also review the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program, among others. The Committee expects NAPA and GAO to
work together, sharing progress and information during the
course of their reviews, which should begin within 60 days
after the enactment of this act.
The Committee directs the Director to provide to the
Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on travel
expenditures, summarized by office, program, and individual,
including dates and purpose of travel. The Committee further
directs the Director to provide to the Committees on
Appropriations quarterly reports on current staffing levels and
plans for future hirings. The staffing report shall include
office, position title, salary, and job classifications of all
persons employed by ONDCP, including contractors.
COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $29,700,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 9,600,000
House allowance......................................... 19,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] was
established by the Counter-Narcotics Technology Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-510) and reauthorized in 1998 (Public Law 105-
277) to serve as the central counterdrug technology research
and development organization for the United States Government.
CTAC encompasses two separate functions: (1) the Research and
Development program [R&D], which supports improvements to
counterdrug capabilities that transcend the need of any single
Federal agency; and (2) the Technology Transfer Program [TTP],
which provides state-of-the-art, affordable, easily integrated
and maintainable tools to enhance the capabilities of State and
local law enforcement agencies for counterdrug missions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000
for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, a decrease of
$9,700,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and
$10,400,000 above the President's request. Included in the
appropriation is $10,000,000 for demand reduction and
$10,000,000 for the Technology Transfer Program. The Committee
continues to support the mandate that CTAC's authority ``shall
not extend to contracts, management of individual projects, or
other operational activities,'' and should continue to transfer
its appropriated funds to Contracting and Technical Agents at
other Federal and military departments and agencies.
Demand Reduction R&D.--The Committee fully supports
continuing the CTAC demand reduction program and reminds ONDCP
that the fiscal year 2006 conference report directed the
``completion of existing imaging system instrumentation
validation effects at qualified academic institutions.''
The report further directed that: ``a spending plan be
included in the ONDCP operating plan for fiscal year 2006.''
This plan has not been received by the Committee, therefore the
Committee directs submission of the fiscal year 2006 plan 30
days after enactment of this act. The plan shall include an
accounting of the use of the fiscal year 2006 CTAC R&D
appropriated funds and an accounting of all fiscal year 2006
funds that are unobligated and unexpended and the rationale for
inaction.
For fiscal year 2007, not more than $1,000,000 of the
funding provided for counternarcotics research and development
projects is directed toward supply reduction activities. The
Committee directs submission of a spending plan for fiscal year
2007 that reinstates the demand instrumentation infrastructure
development program. The plan must include demand
instrumentation and infrastructure systems and technology
development projects that would provide researchers with the
tools to conduct more advanced NIH, NIDA, SAMHSA, NIMH drug
addiction and scientific studies. The Committee further directs
the fiscal year 2007 funds with expenditure project execution
authority be completed and transferred to other Federal
departments and agencies within 45 days of enactment of this
act.
Technology Transfer Program.--The Committee believes that
this program demonstrates the best direct assistance the
Federal Government has to offer to State and local law
enforcement. The Committee is encouraged by the positive
reception this program continues to receive by State and local
law enforcement agencies. Thus prompting the Committee to
request that the fiscal year 2008 budget request include a
specific accounting of the total number of TTP applications
received and the number awarded in the previous year, so that
the Committee may have a true understanding of CTAC's ability
to meet demand.
Funds Appropriated to the President
FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS
HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $224,730,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 235,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 227,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program
was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended,
and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's
reauthorization (Public Law 105-277) to provide assistance to
Federal, State and local law enforcement entities operating in
those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $227,000,000
for the HIDTA program, an increase of $2,270,000 over the
fiscal year 2006 level and $227,000,000 over the budget request
which proposed to transfer the program to the Department of
Justice. This program is an important function of ONDCP and
should not be transferred. The Committee directs that funding
shall be provided for the existing HIDTAs at no less than the
fiscal year 2006 initial allocation level, unless the Director
submits to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
and the Committees approve, a request for reprogramming of the
funds based on clearly articulated priorities for the HIDTA
program, as well as published ONDCP performance measures of
effectiveness. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Director
to take appropriate steps to ensure that the HIDTA funds are
transferred to the appropriate drug control agencies
expeditiously.
In allocating HIDTA funds, the Committee expects the
Director of ONDCP to ensure that the entities receiving these
limited resources make use of them strictly for implementing
the strategy for each HIDTA, taking into consideration local
conditions and resource requirements. In this regard,
methamphetamine is a primary illicit drug threat across the
country. Its widespread use and resulting addiction, combined
with the overwhelming availability of high purity, low cost
methamphetamine is cause for serious concern. Cocaine and
heroin also represent significant threats and Ecstasy is an
increasing danger. Marijuana is readily available and widely
abused across the United States. Canadian-produced marijuana,
commonly known as BC Bud, and potent marijuana from the
Appalachian States are two examples that demonstrate the value
of marijuana eradication programs.
The HIDTA funds should not be used to supplant existing
support for ongoing Federal, State, or local drug control
operations normally funded out of the operating budgets of each
agency. ONDCP is directed to hold back all HIDTA funds from a
State until such time as a State or locality has met its
financial obligation.
The Committee is disappointed by ONDCP's delay in the award
of HIDTA funding, and includes provisions in the bill to
address this issue.
Allocation of Additional Funds.--The Committee is
disappointed in the manner that ONDCP chooses to allocate
funds. While the Committee supports the areas to which the
additional funding is now directed, the Committee does not
believe that these programs are being judiciously funded. ONDCP
continues to disregard the congressional directive that at
least $2,000,000 should be spent on new counties. The Committee
believes new counties to be those that have not previously
received HIDTA funding, and are an expansion of an existing
HIDTA. The Committee includes provisions in the bill to address
this issue.
OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $192,951,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 212,160,000
House allowance......................................... 194,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 214,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690), as
amended, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's
reauthorization (Public Law 105-277) established the Special
Forfeiture Fund to be administered by the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy in support of high
priority drug control programs. This account includes the
following programs: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,
Drug Free Communities Support Program, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency,
National Drug Court Institute, Performance Measures
Development, and World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] membership
dues.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $214,500,000
for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $2,340,000
more than the requested amount and $21,549,000 more than the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Within this amount, the
Committee provides the following funding levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign................. $120,000,000
Drug Free Communities Support Program................... 80,000,000
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency................................. 9,000,000
National Drug Court Institute........................... 1,000,000
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws............. 1,000,000
Performance Measure Development......................... 2,000,000
World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA]......................... 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.--The Committee has
provided consistent monetary support for the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign since it was initially funded by
Congress in fiscal year 1998. The Committee continues to be
concerned about the direction and efficacy of the Media
Campaign as it is currently structured, and notes that
independent reports have concluded that the Media Campaign has
not had a demonstrable nationwide effect on reducing drug use
among the Campaign's target population. The Committee provides
$120,000,000 for the Media Campaign, of which $15,000,000 shall
be for the continuation of anti-methamphetamine advertising.
The Committee is concerned with the priorities of the Media
Campaign and wants to assure that America's meth problem is
addressed in a responsible manner by the Office of National
Drug Control Policy. Of these funds, $20,000,000 may not be
made available for use unless GAO certifies that the program is
meeting the benchmarks established by OMB.
The Committee remains concerned with the large proportion
of Media Campaign resources devoted to administrative costs.
The bill, therefore, directs that no more than 10 percent of
the funding provided for the Media Campaign be used for
administrative costs.
Drug-Free Communities Support Program.--ONDCP has directed
the Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in
partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention since it was created by the Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-20). DFCSP provides matching grants
of up to 25 percent to local coalitions that mobilize their
communities to prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug,
and inhalant abuse. Such grants support coalitions of youth;
parents; media; law enforcement; school officials; faith-based
organizations; fraternal organizations; State, local, and
tribal government agencies; healthcare professionals; and other
community representatives. The DFCSP enables these coalitions
to strengthen their coordination and prevention efforts,
encourage citizen participation in substance abuse reduction
efforts, and disseminate information about effective programs.
The Committee provides $80,000,000 for the continuation of the
DFCSP.
The Committee has also included a provision in the bill
directing ONDCP to provide $2,000,000 of DFCSP funds as a
direct grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
in order to sustain the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition
Institute.
The Committee is displeased with the sudden changes made by
ONDCP to the DFCSP, therefore the Committee has included a
provision in the accompanying bill to address this issue.
United States Anti-Doping Agency.--The United States Anti-
Doping Agency [USADA] is the independent anti-doping agency for
Olympic sports in the United States, and is responsible for
managing the testing and adjudication process for U.S. Olympic,
Pan Am and Paralympic athletes. As a nonprofit corporation
under the leadership of an independent Board of Directors,
USADA has the authority to set forth guiding principles in
anti-doping policy and to enforce any doping violations. In
addition to managing collection and testing procedures, USADA
is also responsible for enhancing research efforts and
promoting educational programs to inform athletes of the rules
governing the use of performance enhancing substances, the
ethics of doping and its harmful health effects.
The Committee provides $9,000,000 for USADA, which is
$500,000 more than the requested amount. USADA's efforts with
respect to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative [BALCO] and the
new threat of human growth hormone provide examples of the
challenges facing this agency.
World Anti-Doping Agency.--ONDCP is a full participant in
the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA], which promotes and
coordinates international activities against doping in all
forms of sports. The Committee provides $1,500,000 for
membership dues to the WADA, consistent with the commitment the
United States has WADA. In providing these funds, the Committee
directs ONDCP to use its voice and vote as the United States'
representative in this world body to ensure that all countries'
athletes are subject to fair and equal standards and treatment.
Thus establishing and maintaining the objectivity and integrity
of this fledgling international athletic regulatory
organization.
National Drug Court Institute.--The National Drug Court
Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by
promoting and disseminating education, research, and
scholarship concerning drug court programs and providing a
comprehensive drug court training series for practitioners.
Drug courts provide an effective means to fight drug-related
crime through the cooperative efforts of State and local law
enforcement, the judicial system, and the public health
treatment network. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the
National Drug Court Institute.
National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws.--The National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws [NAMSDL] is a national
organization that drafts, researches, and analyzes model drug
and alcohol laws and related State statutes, provides access to
a national network of drug and alcohol experts, and facilitates
working relationships among State and community leaders and
drug and alcohol professionals. In doing so, NAMSDL encourages
States to adopt and implement laws, policies, and regulations
to reduce drug trafficking, drug use, and their related
consequences. The Committee provides $1,000,000 to NAMSDL and
directs ONDCP to provide the entire amount directly to NAMSDL
within 30 days after enactment of this act.
Performance Measures Development.--Performance Measures
Development [PMD] funding is used to conduct evaluation
research for assessing the effectiveness of the National Drug
Control Strategy. For this function, the Committee provides
$2,000,000, which is the same as the requested amount.
Projects undertaken with these resources are to entail
efforts to encourage and work with selected programs to develop
and improve needed data sources.
Unanticipated Needs
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $990,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 11,789,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated
exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or
defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $10,000 more
than appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and $10,789,000 below the
budget request.
Special Assistance to the President
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,410,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 4,352,000
House allowance......................................... 4,352,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,352,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for staff and expenses to
enable the Vice President to provide assistance to the
President in connection with the performance of executive
duties and responsibilities. The Vice President also has a
staff funded by the Senate to assist him in the performance of
his legislative duties. These funds also support the official
activities of the spouse of the Vice President.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,352,000 for
special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $58,000 below than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
Official Residence of the Vice President
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $322,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 317,000
House allowance......................................... 317,000
Committee recommendation................................ 317,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account supports the care and operation of the Vice
President's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.
These funds specifically support equipment, furnishings, dining
facilities, and services required to perform and discharge the
Vice President's official duties, functions and obligations.
Funds to renovate the residence are provided through the
Department of the Navy budget. The Committee has had a
longstanding interest in the condition of the residence and
expects to be kept fully apprised by the Vice President's
office of any and all renovations and alterations made to the
residence by the Navy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $317,000 for
the official residence of the Vice President. This amount is
the same as the budget request and $5,000 less than the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
Administrative Provisions--Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Section 501. The Committee continues a provision that
provides flexibility in the use of funds in accounts under the
Executive Office of the President.
Section 502. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring a financial plan by the Director of the ONDCP prior
to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2007.
Section 503. The Committee includes a new provision
allowing for the transfer of up to 3 percent among programs
within ONDCP.
Section 504. The Committee includes a new provision
establishing new reprogramming requirements for ONDCP.
Section 505. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring ONDCP to comport with budget estimates except as
otherwise provided in this act, or through an approved
reprogramming.
TITLE VI
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $5,882,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,957,000
House allowance......................................... 5,957,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,957,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board was reauthorized
in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-
569. Under this authorization, the Access Board's functions are
to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968, the Telecommunication Act and to develop guidelines for
and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
In 2002, the Access Board was given additional
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Access
Board serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee, which helps Election
Assistance Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance
for voting systems, including accessibility for people with
disabilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,957,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the funding level requested by the administration and $75,000
over the fiscal year 2006 level.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $62,370,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 62,370,000
House allowance......................................... 62,370,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,370,000
program description
The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting
State and local regulations; and promoting research and
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards;
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product
regulations by governmental units.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $62,370,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, which is equal to the budget request
and the same as the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Election Assistance Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $14,058,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 16,908,000
House allowance......................................... 16,908,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Election Assistance Commission [EAC] was created by the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA]. Under HAVA, the EAC's
role is to promulgate voluntary State guidelines for election
systems, develop a national certification program for voting
equipment, and provide related guidance. The EAC is also
charged with awarding grants to improve election administration
and enhancing election equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $17,000,000 for EAC's administrative
expenses, which is $2,942,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
level. The accompanying bill provides $4,950,000 of these funds
for transfer to the National Institute for Standards and
Technology for technical assistance related to the development
of voluntary State voting systems guidelines.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $30,690,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 26,256,000
House allowance......................................... 26,256,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,256,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FDIC Office of Inspector General conducts audits,
investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the
FDIC's contribution to the stability of, and public confidence
in, the Nation's financial system. A separate appropriation
more effectively ensures the OIG's independence consistent with
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended and other
legislation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $26,256,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, the same as the budget request and $4,434,000 less
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Funds are to be
derived by transfer from the Deposit Insurance Fund and the
FSLIC resolution fund.
Federal Election Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $54,153,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 57,138,000
House allowance......................................... 57,138,000
Committee recommendation................................ 57,138,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Election Commission [FEC] was created through
the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 [FECA]. Consistent with its duty of executing our Nation's
Federal campaign finance laws, and in pursuit of its mission of
maintaining public faith in the integrity of the Federal
campaign finance system, FEC conducts three major regulatory
programs: (1) providing public disclosure of funds raised and
spent to influence Federal elections; (2) enforcing compliance
with restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to
influence Federal elections; and (3) administering public
financing of Presidential campaigns.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $57,138,000 for the Federal
Election Commission, which is the same as the budget request
and $2,985,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Federal Labor Relations Authority
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $25,213,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 25,218,000
House allowance......................................... 25,218,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,218,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] is an
independent administrative Federal agency created by title VII
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 with a mission to carry
out five statutory responsibilities: (1) determining the
appropriateness of units for Labor organization representation;
(2) resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; (3)
adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator's awards; (4)
adjudicating legal issues relating to duty to bargain; and (5)
resolving impasses during negotiations.
The FLRA's authority is divided by law and by delegation
among a three-member authority and an Office of General
Counsel, appointed by the President and subject to Senate
confirmation; and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which
consists of seven part-time members appointed by the President.
In addition, the FLRA is engaged in case-related
interventions and training and facilitation of labor-management
partnerships and in resolving disputes. FLRA promotes labor-
management cooperation by providing training and assistance to
labor organizations and agencies on resolving disputes,
facilitates the creation of partnerships, and trains the
parties on rights and responsibilities under the Federal
Relations Labor Relations Management statute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,218,000
for the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the
same as the President's budget request and $5,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
Federal Maritime Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $20,294,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 21,474,000
House allowance......................................... 20,294,010
Committee recommendation................................ 21,474,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984
(Public Law 98-237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S.
ports. Major program areas for 2006 are: carrying out
investigations of foreign trade practices under the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act; maintaining equitable trading
conditions in U.S. ocean commerce; ensuring compliance with
applicable shipping statutes; pursuing an active enforcement
program designed to identify and prosecute violators of the
shipping statutes; and reviewing ocean carrier operational and
pricing agreements to guard against excessively anticompetitive
effects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee includes $21,474,000 for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year
2007. This amount is the same as the budget request and
$1,180,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
General Services Administration
The General Services Administration [GSA] was established
by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
when Congress mandated the consolidation of the Federal
Government's real property and administrative services. GSA is
organized into the Public Buildings Service, the Federal Supply
Service, the Federal Technology Service, the Office of
Governmentwide Policy, and the Office of Citizen Services and
Communications.
FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND--LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Limitation of availability of revenue:
Limitation on availability, 2006.................... $7,752,745,000
Limitation on availability, 2007.................... 8,046,666,000
House allowance......................................... 7,180,886,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,064,737,000
The Federal Buildings Fund program consists of the
following activities financed from rent charges:
Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.--Space is
acquired through the construction or purchase of facilities and
prospectus-level extensions to existing buildings. All costs
directly attributable to site acquisition, construction, and
the full range of design and construction services, and
management and inspection of construction projects are funded
under this activity.
Repairs and Alterations.--Repairs and alterations of public
buildings as well as associated design and construction
services are funded under this activity. Protection of the
Government's investment, health and safety of building
occupants, transfer of agencies from leased space, and cost
effectiveness are the principal criteria used in establishing
priorities. Primary consideration is given to repairs to
prevent deterioration and damage to buildings, their support
systems, and operating equipment. This activity also provides
for conversion of existing facilities and non-prospectus
extensions.
Installment Acquisition Payments.--Payments are made for
liabilities incurred under purchase contract authority and
lease purchase arrangements. The periodic payments cover
principal, interest on the debt incurred for construction of
Federal buildings.
Rental of Space.--Space is acquired through the leasing of
buildings including space occupied by Federal agencies in U.S.
Postal Service facilities, 174 million rentable square feet in
fiscal year 2006, and 180 million rentable square feet in
fiscal year 2007.
Building Operations.--Services are provided for Government-
owned and leased facilities, including cleaning, utilities and
fuel, maintenance, miscellaneous services (such as moving,
evaluation of new materials and equipment, and field
supervision), and general management and administration of all
real property related programs including salaries and benefits
paid from the Federal Buildings Fund.
Other Programs.--When requested by Federal agencies, the
Public Buildings Service provides building services, such as
tenant alterations, cleaning and other operations, and
protection services which are in excess of those services
provided under the commercial rental charge. For presentation
purposes, the balances of the Unconditional Gifts of Real,
Personal, or Other Property trust fund have been combined with
the Federal Buildings Fund.
CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ ($792,056,000)
Limitation on availability, 2007........................ (690,095,000)
House allowance......................................... 374,095,000
Committee recommendation................................ 708,166,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction and acquisition fund shall be available
for site, design, construction, management, and inspection
costs for the construction of new Federal facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $708,166,000 for
the fund.
The judicial branch has indicated that it is in a funding
crisis, in part, precipitated by the deficit concerns facing
the Federal Government and, from its perspective, an onerous
financial burden caused by GSA rent bills for Federal courtroom
space.
The Committee is concerned by continued efforts by the
Federal judiciary to circumvent paying rents to the Federal
Buildings Fund [FBF]. In a recent report by the Government
Accountability Office on the courthouse construction program,
GAO stated that any rent exemption for the Federal judiciary
would seriously hinder the FBF's ability to accumulate
sufficient funds for capital investment for the 68 executive
and legislative branch customers that it serves. Because GSA's
customer agencies contribute their fair share to the FBF, the
FBF is fulfilling its intended role as a source of both
operating and capital funds for the Federal Government as a
whole.
The Federal judiciary should be aware that the FBF has
financed the judiciary's request for courthouse repair and
alteration as well as construction. Over the last 20 years,
almost $1,700,000,000 in major modernizations for courthouses
were funded by rent paid by executive, legislative, and
judicial branch agencies. In addition, the Committee would note
that $3,400,000,000 in new construction for the Federal
judiciary has been spent on approximately 50 new Government-
owned and 30 lease-constructed courthouses over the past 10
years.
The Committee is disappointed that the judicial branch has
sought to relieve its overall budget problems by challenging
the requirement to pay rent and cost of its courthouses. In
pursuing the $3,400,000,000 in new construction of Federal
courthouses, the Federal judiciary was well aware that there
were rents associated with the approval of these courthouses by
Congress. Terms and rents were agreed to by the Federal
judiciary, GSA, OMB, and ultimately approved by Congress. The
rules of the game can not be changed at this time.
The Committee would also note that the Federal judiciary's
Space and Facilities Committee will shortly be releasing its
new courthouse management 5-year plan, following a moratorium
and time out and review of 2 years. The Committee looks forward
to reviewing the additional space and facility needs and
increased rent payments that the Federal judiciary will be
pursuing.
The Committee notes the rental adjustments made by GSA in
favor of the judiciary and urges GSA to continue to monitor and
calculate rental charges carefully so as to avoid erroneous
billings in the future.
REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS
Limitation on availability, 2006 ....................... $861,376,000
Limitation on availability, 2007........................ 866,194,000
House allowance......................................... 435,281,000
Committee recommendation................................ 866,194,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Under this activity, the General Services Administration
[GSA] executes its responsibility for repairs and alterations
[R&A] of both Government-owned and leased facilities under the
control of GSA. The primary goal of this activity is to provide
commercially equivalent space to tenant agencies. Safety,
quality, and operating efficiency of facilities are given
primary consideration in carrying out this responsibility.
R&A workload requirements originate with scheduled onsite
inspections of buildings by qualified regional engineers and
building managers. The work identified through these
inspections is programmed in order of priority into the
Inventory Reporting Information System [IRIS] and incorporated
into a 5-year plan for accomplishment, based upon funding
availability, urgency, and the volume of R&A work that GSA has
the capability to execute annually. Since fiscal year 1995,
design and construction services activities associated with
repair and alteration projects have been funded in this
account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends new obligational authority of
$866,194,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2007.
This amount is the same as the President's request.
INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ $168,180,000
Limitation on availability, 2007........................ 163,999,000
House allowance......................................... 163,999,000
Committee recommendation................................ 163,999,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 enables GSA to
enter into contractual arrangements for the construction of a
backlog of approved but unfunded projects. This activity
provides for the payment of interest to the Federal Financing
Bank related to facilities acquired pursuant to the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 592).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $163,999,000 for
installment acquisition payments, the same as the budget
request and $4,181,000 below the fiscal year 2006 funding
level.
RENTAL OF SPACE
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ $4,046,031,000
Limitation on availability, 2007........................ 4,322,548,000
House allowance......................................... 4,322,548,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,322,548,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
GSA is responsible for leasing general purpose space and
land incident thereto for Federal agencies, except cases where
GSA has delegated its leasing authority. GSA's policy is to
lease privately owned buildings and land only when: (1) Federal
space needs cannot be otherwise accommodated satisfactorily in
existing Government-owned or leased space; (2) leasing proves
to be more efficient than the construction or alteration of a
Federal building; (3) construction or alteration is not
warranted because requirements in the community are
insufficient or are indefinite in scope or duration; or (4)
completion of a new Federal building within a reasonable time
cannot be assured.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $4,322,548,000 for
rental of space. The Committee recommendation is the same as
the President's budget request and $276,517,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
BUILDING OPERATIONS
Limitation on availability, 2006........................ $1,885,102,000
Limitation on availability, 2007........................ 2,003,830,000
House allowance......................................... 1,885,102,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,003,830,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This activity provides for the operation of all Government-
owned facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and building
services in GSA-leased space where the terms of the lease do
not require the lessor to furnish such services. Services
included in building operations are cleaning, protection,
maintenance, payments for utilities and fuel, grounds
maintenance, and elevator operations. Other related supporting
services include various real property management and staff
support activities such as space acquisition and assignment;
the moving of Federal agencies as a result of space alterations
in order to provide better space utilization in existing
buildings; onsite inspection of building services and
operations accomplished by private contractors; and various
highly specialized contract administration support functions.
The space, operations, and services referred to above are
furnished by GSA to its tenant agencies in return for payment
of rent. Due to considerations unique to their operation, GSA
also provides varying levels of above-standard services in
agency headquarter facilities, including those occupied by the
Executive Office of the President, such as the east and west
wings of the White House.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $2,003,830,000 for
building operations. This amount is the same as the President's
budget request and $118,728,000 above the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee is pleased with the initial actions of GSA to
promote exercise and good health through the promotion of the
use of stairs in Federal buildings, and the Committee
encourages these efforts to be continued.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $52,796,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 52,550,000
House allowance......................................... 52,550,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,550,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Government-wide Policy provides for
Government-wide policy development, support, and evaluation
functions associated with real and personal property, supplies,
vehicles, aircraft, information technology, acquisition,
transportation and travel management. This office also provides
for the Federal Procurement Data Center, Workplace Initiatives,
Regulatory Information Service Center, the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat.
The Office of Government-wide Policy, working cooperatively
with other agencies, provides the leadership needed to develop
and evaluate the implementation of policies designed to achieve
the most cost-effective solutions for the delivery of
administrative services and sound workplace practices, while
reducing regulations and empowering employees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,550,000
for Government-wide Policy. This amount is the same as the
President's budget request and is a reduction of $246,000 below
the fiscal year 2006 level.
Environmental Training Program.--The Committee is pleased
with the significant cost savings recently demonstrated in the
environmental analysis efforts undertaken by GSA in the
National Capital Region. The Committee recommends that GSA
extend this environmental training and analysis program
currently underway to other GSA regions. The Committee urges
GSA to work with its existing partner to preserve continuity
when expanding this program to the eight other GSA regions. The
Committee also encourages the utilization of leased employees
to implement these cost savings programs in other GSA regions
whenever possible.
OPERATING EXPENSES
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $99,890,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 83,032,000
House allowance......................................... 80,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 83,032,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Operating Expenses provides funding for Government-wide
activities associated with the utilization and donation of
surplus personal property; disposal of real property;
telecommunications, information technology management, and
related technology activities; agency-wide policy direction and
management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other
support services; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and
other related operational expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,032,000
for the Operating Expenses. This amount is the same as the
administration's request and $16,858,000 below the fiscal year
2006 enacted level.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $43,410,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 44,312,000
House allowance......................................... 44,312,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,312,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct management and
administrative deficiencies within the General Services
Administration [GSA], creating conditions for existing or
potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. This
audit function provides internal audit and contract audit
services. Contract audits provide professional advice to GSA
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters
relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing,
and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and
evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test
internal control systems, and develop information to improve
operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The
investigative function provides for the detection and
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving GSA
programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,312,000
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as
the President's budget request and $902,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program supports interagency ``electronic government''
or ``e-gov'' initiatives, i.e., projects that use the Internet
or other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses,
and other government agencies with simpler and more timely
access to Federal information, benefits, services, and business
opportunities.
Proposals for funding must meet capital planning guidelines
and include adequate documentation to demonstrate a sound
business case, attention to security and privacy, and a way to
measure performance against planned results. In addition, a
small portion of the money could be used for awards to those
project management teams that delivered the best product to
meet customer needs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is the same as the
President's request. The Committee supports the use of funding
under this account for the continued development of an eTravel
System, which is designed to centralize a travel system for the
Federal Government through a self-service electronic system.
The eTravel system when completed will eliminate the hardcopy
travel documentation. This program will ultimately automate the
entire travel process. Nevertheless, the Committee believes
that the eTravel system should be designed to ensure the
participation of small business subcontracting and directs GSA
to establish benchmarks to ensure the participation and growth
of small business participation. These benchmarks shall be no
less than 23 percent of all contracted dollars.
ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,952,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 3,030,000
House allowance......................................... 3,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,030,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions,
office staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton, a
pension for the widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson,
and postal franking privileges for the widows of former
Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Also, this
appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and
travel related expenses for each former President and the
spouse of a former President pursuant to Section 531 of Public
Law 103-329.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,030,000 for allowances and
office staff for former Presidents.
Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee's
recommendation for fiscal year 2007 funding:
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Carter Bush Clinton Widows Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation........................ 96 96 96 96 ......... 384
Personnel Benefits............................ 24 2 63 64 ......... 153
Benefits for Former Presidents................ 188 188 188 197 20 781
Travel........................................ 46 2 55 64 ......... 167
Rental Payments to GSA........................ 105 102 175 498 ......... 880
Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous
charges:
Telephone................................. 16 10 16 77 ......... 119
Postage................................... 9 15 13 15 8 60
Printing...................................... 5 5 14 9 ......... 33
Other Services................................ 37 82 65 113 ......... 297
Supplies and Materials........................ 18 5 15 16 ......... 54
Equipment..................................... 6 7 48 11 ......... 72
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Obligations....................... 550 514 748 1,160 28 3,000
=================================================================
Infrastructure Contingency Planning........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 30
=================================================================
Total Obligations....................... 550 514 748 1,160 28 3,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 16,866,000
House allowance......................................... 16,866,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,866,000
program description
The Federal Citizen Information Center [FCIC] brings
together an array of U.S. Government information and services
and makes them accessible to the public. This information is
made available on the web, via e-mail, in print, or over the
telephone.
Originally established within the General Services
Administration [GSA] by Executive order on October 26, 1970, to
help Federal departments and agencies promote and distribute
printed consumer information, FCIC has evolved and consolidated
a variety of complementary functions to augment the original
print and media channels through which it informed the public.
On January 28, 2000, the FCIC assumed responsibility for
the operations of the Federal Information Center [FIC] program.
The FIC program was established within the General Services
Administration in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95-491
in 1980. The program's purpose is to provide the public with
direct information about all aspects of Federal programs,
regulations, and services. To accomplish this mission,
contractual services are used to respond to public inquiries
via the nationwide toll-free National Contact Center.
On June 30, 2002, FCIC assumed operational control of the
FirstGov.gov website, the official portal of the U.S.
Government, and became a critical part of GSA's newly
established Office of Citizen Services and Communications. This
Office brings together all of GSA's citizen-centered programs.
The new Office serves as a central Federal gateway for
citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media to
easily obtain information and services from the Government. On
March 31, 2003, FCIC began accepting e-mail and fax inquiries
from the public through the FirstGov.gov website and responds
to them at its National Contact Center.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications and contact center services, user
fees collected from the public, and any other income incident
to FCIC activities. All are available as authorized in
appropriation acts without regard to fiscal year limitations.
The Committee recognizes the need for the General Services
Administration [GSA] to work with the Federal Protective
Service [FPS] of the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to
implement the newly developed FSRM methodology. Implementing
the new methodology will facilitate the performance of risk
assessments to support new construction, major modernizations
and/or pre-lease projects. The Committee remains concerned that
a cooperative effort between FPS and GSA is required to fully
implement Interagency Security Committee [ISC] Security Design
Criteria and the ISC Security Criteria for Leased Space. The
GSA will work with DHS to provide engineering expertise to
support the structural aspects of the project's specific risk
assessments. Therefore, the GSA Public Building Service [PBS]
(Office of the Chief Architect and Office of Real Property
Asset Management) is directed to continue to work with the
private sector to implement the new Federal Security Risk
Management methodology to facilitate the application of the
process and the software throughout the GSA regions and in
consultation with the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Protective Service.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $16,866,000 for the Federal
Citizen Information Center, an increase of $1,866,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level and equal to 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.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Section 601 authorizes GSA to credit accounts with certain
funds received from Government corporations.
Section 602 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
Section 603 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the
Federal buildings fund for meeting program requirements.
Section 604 limits funding for courthouse construction
which does not meet certain standards of a capital improvement
plan.
Section 605 provides that no funds may be used to increase
the amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning
services, security enhancements, or any other service usually
provided, to any agency which does not pay the requested rate.
Section 606 continues the provision that permits GSA to pay
small claims (up to $250,000) made against the Government.
Section 607 prohibits the use of funds by GSA to reorganize
its organizational structure except through an operating plan
change.
Section 608 includes a new provision as proposed by the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to
merge the General Supply Fund and Information Technology Fund
into a new Acquisition Services Fund.
Section 609 includes a new provision naming the future
Federal courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee.
Merit Systems Protection Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $35,244,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 36,531,000
House allowance......................................... 36,531,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,550,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Merit System Protection Board [MSPB] was established by
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB is an independent
quasi-judicial agency manifested to protect Federal merits
systems against partisan political and other prohibited
personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for
employees against abuses by agency management.
MSPB assists Federal agencies in running a merit-based
civil service system. This is accomplished on a case-by-case
basis through hearing and deciding employee appeals, and on a
systemic basis by reviewing significant actions and regulations
of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and conducting
studies of the civil service and other merit systems. The
intended results of MSPB's efforts are to assure that personnel
actions taken against employees are processed within the law,
and that actions taken by OPM and other agencies support and
enhance Federal merit principles.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,550,000
for the Merit Systems Protection Board, this is an increase of
$1,326,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $19,000
above the President's request. The Committee makes available no
more than $2,605,000 for adjudicated appeals through an
appropriation from the trust fund consistent with past
practice, allowing for appropriate funding for MSPB to continue
as arbitrator for the additional appeals cases from the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,980,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Public Law 106-568 authorized the Morris K. Udall
Foundation to establish training programs for professionals in
health care policy and public policy, such as the Native
Nations Institute [NNI]. NNI, based at the University of
Arizona, will provide Native Americans with leadership and
management training and analyze policies relevant to tribes.
The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall Fund is
invested in Treasury securities with maturities suitable to the
needs of the Fund. Interest earnings from the investments are
used to carry out the activities of the Morris K. Udall
Foundation. The Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships and
grants, and funds activities of the Udall Center.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for
the Morris K. Udall Foundation. The Committee includes language
to allow up to 60 percent of the appropriation to be used for
the expenses of the Native Nations Institute. The Committee
also includes language requiring the Foundation to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the amount
of funding, if any, transferred from the Trust Fund for the
Native Nations Institute and justification for such transfers.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,881,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 693,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is
a Federal program established by Public Law 105-156 to assist
parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and
public lands conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K.
Udall Foundation, and serves as an impartial, non-partisan
institution providing professional expertise, services, and
resources to all parties involved in such disputes. The
Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem
solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts,
how and when to bring all the parties together for discussion,
and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be
helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to each
consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition, the
Institute maintains a roster of qualified facilitators and
mediators with substantial experience in environmental conflict
resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate
neutral.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for
the Morris K. Udall Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This
amount is the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,307,000
above the administration's request.
National Archives and Records Administration
The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is
the national recordkeeper. NARA is an independent agency
created by statute in 1934 to safeguard the records of all
three branches of the Federal Government. NARA administers the
Information Security Oversight Office [ISOO], is the publisher
of the Federal Register and makes grants for historical
documentation through the National Historical Publications and
Records Commission [NHPRC].
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $280,215,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 289,605,000
House allowance......................................... 281,605,000
Committee recommendation................................ 285,915,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides for basic operations dealing with
management of the Federal Government's archives and records,
operation of Presidential Libraries, and for the review for
declassification of classified security information.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $285,915,000 for operating
expenses of the National Archives and Records Administration
for fiscal year 2007. This amount is $3,690,000 below the
budget request and $5,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee's recommendation includes additional funds to
maintain current service levels, to support the Public Interest
Declassification Board, to prepare for the new George W. Bush
Presidential Library, and to relocate the Southwest and Central
Plains Regional Archives facilities. The Committee has denied
additional operating expense funds for the Nixon Presidential
Library due to other higher priorities and budget constraints.
ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $37,535,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 45,455,000
House allowance......................................... 45,455,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,810,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is
developing an Electronic Records Archives [ERA] that will
ensure the preservation of and access to Government electronic
records. With the rapid changes in technology today, the
formats in which records are stored become obsolete within a
few years, making records inaccessible even if they are
preserved intact with the most modern technology. ERA will
preserve electronic records generated in a manner that enables
requesters to access them on computer systems now and in the
future.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $48,810,000 for the Electronics
Records Archives project. This amount is an increase of
$3,355,000 above the budget request and $11,275,000 above the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Bill language is included
requiring NARA to submit a spend plan for these funds. The
Committee has included an additional $3,355,000 to support
NARA's work with the Naval Oceanographic Office at the National
Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
The Committee strongly supports the Electronic Record
Archives [ERA] program at the National Archives Records
Administration. The Committee is concerned that the amount
requested in the President's budget may not be adequate to meet
current program requirements for the development of systems to
interface with agencies, receive all documents, and conduct all
necessary training programs, and that some of these activities
may be delayed. The Committee is committed to working next year
to ensure that this program is adequately funded on an
expedited basis so ERA can preserve the nation's important
records at the earliest feasible date.
REPAIRS AND RESTORATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $9,585,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 13,020,000
House allowance......................................... 13,020,000
Committee recommendation................................ 18,790,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides for the repair, alteration, and
improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential Libraries
nationwide, and provides adequate storage for holdings. It will
better enable NARA to maintain its facilities in proper
condition for public visitors, researchers, and NARA employees,
and also maintain the structural integrity of the buildings.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $18,790,000 for the repairs and
restoration account. This amount is $9,205,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level and $5,770,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing repairs and restoration......................... $6,120,000
LBJ Presidential Library................................ 3,760,000
Alaska Regional Archives and Records Center............. 2,500,000
JFK Presidential Library................................ 6,410,000
---------------
Total............................................. 18,790,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has prioritized funding under this account to
projects that have already begun construction. The most notable
project is the Lyndon Baines Johnson [LBJ] Presidential Library
project that is currently undergoing construction but currently
needs $3,760,000 to complete the project. Accordingly, the
Committee has given top priority to the LBJ project by
providing $3,760,000. Further, the Committee recognizes that
construction funds have already been provided to the new Alaska
regional archives and records center. This project has
completed its planning and design and site selection phases and
is prepared for construction. Therefore, the Committee also has
made this a priority and appropriated $2,500,000 for this
project. Last, since the JFK Presidential Library will complete
the design phase by the end of fiscal year 2006, the Committee
also directs NARA to provide $6,410,000 to the JFK Presidential
Library.
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
GRANTS PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $7,425,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 7,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Historical Publications and Records Commission
[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish
records that document American history. Administered within the
National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps
State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal
records, helps publish the papers of major figures in American
history, and helps archivists and records managers improve
their techniques, training, and ability to serve a range of
information users.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. This
amount is $2,425,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and $5,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee strongly supports the NHPRC program and has
provided funding to continue this important program. This
program has played a central role in the preservation and
dissemination of the Nation's documentary heritage. Further,
the program has been successful in leveraging private sector
contributions.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The Committee has included a new provision requiring NARA
to develop a comprehensive capital needs assessment [CNA] for
its entire infrastructure of Presidential libraries and records
facilities. The provision requires NARA to submit the CNA as
part of its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. The Committee
strongly believes that a rationale approach through a CNA is
needed for NARA due to the uneven funding priorities submitted
by the administration. The Committee believes that NARA can
benefit from this approach, which has been used by other
Federal agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and
the National Science Foundation.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2006.............. ($1,500,000,000) ($323,000)
Budget estimate, 2007............. (1,500,000,000) (331,000)
House allowance................... (1,500,000,000) (331,000)
Committee recommendation.......... (1,500,000,000) (331,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630). The
CLF is a mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the
National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its
member credit unions.
The purpose of the CLF is to improve the general financial
stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and
emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings,
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become
eligible for CLF services, credit unions invest in the capital
stock of the CLF, and the facility uses the proceeds of such
investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the
liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds
for the CLF are stock subscriptions from credit unions and
borrowings.
The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount
of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed
capital stock and surplus.
Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to
$331,000 in fiscal year 2007. The Committee recommends a
limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new
direct loans to member credit unions. These amounts are the
same as the budget request.
The Committee directs the National Credit Union
Administration [NCUA] to continue to provide reports on the
lending activities under CLF. This information should be
provided to the Committee on a quarterly basis through
September 2007.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $941,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 941,000
House allowance......................................... 941,000
Committee recommendation................................ 941,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program
[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions.
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical
assistance grants [TAGs] are also available to low-income
credit unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated
from the CDRLF were available to fund TAGs. Grants are
available for improving operations as well as addressing safety
and soundness issues. In fiscal year 2004, NCUA designated
funds for specific programs, including taxpayer assistance,
financial education, home ownership initiatives, remittance
services, individual development accounts [IDAs], and training
assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $941,000 for technical assistance
grants to community development credit unions. This funding
level is equal to the budget request and is the same as the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The Committee expects the CDRLF
to continue making loans from their available funds derived
from repaid loans and interest earned on previous loans to
designated credit unions.
The Committee supports NCUA's outreach efforts to
undeserved rural and urban communities across America through
technical assistance grants provided within CDRLF. The
Committee encourages NCUA to continue their efforts in
providing an alternative to predatory lending services through
their targeted technical assistance grants and support.
National Transportation Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $75,933,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 79,594,000
House allowance......................................... 81,594,000
Committee recommendation................................ 79,594,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Initially established along with the Department of
Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent
Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every
civil aviation accident in the United States as well as
significant accidents in the other modes of transportation--
railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and issuing safety
recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. Although
it has always operated independently, NTSB relied on DOT for
funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety
Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633) severed all ties between
the two organizations starting in 1975.
In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is
responsible for maintaining the Government's database of civil
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of
transportation safety issues of national significance.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S.
Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas
involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic or mariner
whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or
when civil penalties are assessed by FAA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $79,594,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board, which is the same as the budget
request and is $3,661,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level.
The Committee notes the NTSB's efforts to return its focus
on the agency's core mission of investigating and identifying
the probable causes of transportation crashes and incidents.
The Committee hopes that the NTSB will continue this trend in
order to improve its performance on completing accident
investigations and reports in a timely manner. The Committee
also notes recent steps the NTSB has taken to manage its
resources more effectively, such as targeting its Academy on
training the NTSB's own staff and renting out the Academy's
building when it is not otherwise being used. The Committee,
however, believes that more can be done to ensure that revenue
generated by the Academy will cover its costs instead of
diverting resources from the core mission of the NTSB.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(RESCISSION)
Rescission, 2006........................................ -$1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... -1,664,000
House allowance......................................... -1,664,000
Committee recommendation................................ -1,664,000
The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations bill
(Public Law 106-246) provided NTSB with emergency expenses
associated with its investigation of the Egypt Air Flight 990
and Alaska Air Flight 261 accidents. These funds were used for
wreckage location and recovery facilities, technical support,
testing, and wreckage mock-up. All of these activities have
been completed and an unobligated balance of $1,664,000
remains. The Committee recommends the requested rescission of
this amount.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $116,820,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 119,790,000
House allowance......................................... 119,790,000
Committee recommendation................................ 119,790,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation now operates under the trade name ``NeighborWorks
America.'' NeighborWorks America helps local communities
establish efficient and effective partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing
associations.
Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks
organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban and rural
communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $119,790,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for fiscal year 2007. This amount is
the same as the budget request and $2,970,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for
the multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has
been successful in developing innovative approaches to
producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the
Nation. The Committee strongly supports this initiative and
commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their efforts in
attracting additional private sector investments for this
initiative. The Committee directs NRC to provide a status
report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2007 budget
justifications.
The Committee continues its support of Neighborhood
Reinvestment efforts in building capacity in rural areas. The
Committee urges the Corporation to continue its efforts in
addressing the needs of rural communities.
Office of Government Ethics
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $11,037,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 11,489,000
House allowance......................................... 11,489,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,489,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a separate agency
within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics of
Government Act of 1978. OGE is charged by law to provide
overall direction of executive branch policies designed to
prevent conflicts of interest and ensure high ethical
standards. OGE carries out these responsibilities by developing
regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, postemployment
restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and confidential
financial disclosure in the executive branch; by monitoring
compliance with financial disclosure requirements by
recommending appropriate corrective action when necessary; by
evaluating the effectiveness of applicable laws; and by
preparing advisor opinions and policy of memoranda interpreting
requirements regarding conflicts of interest, post employment,
standards of conduct, and financial disclosure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,489,000
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in
fiscal year 2007. This amount is the same as the President's
budget request and $452,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level.
Office of Personnel Management
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $121,296,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 111,095,000
House allowance......................................... 111,095,000
Committee recommendation................................ 111,095,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] was established by
Public Law 95-454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
enacted on October 13, 1978. In that act, the Office of
Personnel Management was established in section 1101 of title
5, United States Code. Subsequent sections of chapter 11
provide for the principal officials of the agency and the
functions of the Director, which are really the functions of
the Agency, as well as providing for the delegation of
authority for personnel management from the President and,
subsequently, by the Director.
OPM is the Federal Government agency responsible for
management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of
the merit civil service system. Although individual agencies
are increasingly responsible for personnel operations, OPM
provides a Governmentwide policy framework for personnel
matters, advises and assists agencies (often on a reimbursable
basis), and ensures that agency operations are consistent with
requirements of law on issues such as veterans preference. OPM
oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues
regulations and policies on hiring, classification and pay,
training, investigations, other aspects of personnel
management, and operates a reimbursable training program for
the Federal Government's managers and executives. OPM is also
responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits
and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees,
retired Federal employees, and their survivors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $111,095,000
for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel
Management, which is the same as the budget request and
$10,201,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 level. Of the amount
provided no more than $8,349,000 is to be used for e-Government
projects. This amount is the same as the President's request.
The Committee is very concerned with the practices of the
Office of Personnel Management regarding its approach to human
resources products and services. Federal agencies need to have
the flexibility to contract as they see fit, including
contracting with private companies to provide online employment
applications and processing services, as well as choice in
selecting service providers and human resource systems. While
the Committee understands the need for human resource standards
in public and private contracts, the Committee expects OPM to
allow Federal agencies to have choices in such decisions. The
Committee directs OPM to report to the Committee within 120
days of enactment of this act on their human resources products
and services, including actions taken in response to these
concerns.
Child Care.--OPM and GSA, with technical assistance from
GAO, are conducting a survey of the child care needs of
executive, legislative and judicial branch employees. Within 45
days of the completion and reporting of this survey, GAO should
provide relevant recommendations for further action to the
Committee. The Committee directs OPM to report on progress made
in implementing any recommendations within 6 months after the
release of the report mentioned above. OPM should include
further measures that may be taken to address Federal child
care needs.
The Committee directs OPM to continue its efforts to
provide information and education to agencies and employees on
promotion of the subsidy for child care expenses for lower
income employees.
Retirement Systems Modernization.--The Committee supports
the Retirement Systems Modernization project [RSM], an effort
initiated in 1997 to automate and streamline the manual paper-
intensive business processes used to administer the Federal
employee retirement program. Within 10 years, 60 percent of the
Federal workforce is eligible for retirement, thus it is
crucial that an efficient and effective system be in place for
current and future retirees. Knowing the pitfalls that have
occurred in other IT projects, the Committee is pleased with
the personal attention and commitment of the Director to the
success of this project. The Committee recognizes that the RSM
has benefited from the involvement and expertise of the
Government Accountability Office, as have other IT projects.
The Committee continues to be concerned about difficulties OPM
has encountered in this modernization effort in the past, and
requests that GAO comprehensively review the progress, costs,
and risks of the program. The Committee notes the importance of
the recommendations made by GAO and urges the Director to
continue to give them careful consideration and to maintain
close consultation with GAO in the future.
limitation
(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)
Limitation, 2006........................................ $99,017,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 126,908,000
House allowance......................................... 100,178,000
Committee recommendation................................ 126,908,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
These funds will be transferred from the appropriate trust
funds of the Office of Personnel Management to cover
administrative expenses for the retirement and insurance
programs, including the cost of automating the retirement
recording systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $126,908,000 which
is $28,161,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 level. This
amount is the same as the President's request and includes
requested funds for the cost of automating the retirement
recordkeeping systems.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,050,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 1,598,000
House allowance......................................... 1,598,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,598,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General is charged with
establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts
which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office
of Personnel Management's activities which prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency's programs.
Contract audits provide professional advice to agency
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters
regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing,
and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and
evaluate all facets of agency operations, including financial
statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide detailed
technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits
review the operations of health and life insurance carriers,
health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The
investigative function provides for the detection and
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving
programs, personnel, and operations. Administrative sanctions
debar from participation in the health insurance program those
health care providers whose conduct may pose a threat to the
financial integrity of the program itself or to the well-being
of insurance program enrollees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,598,000 for
salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in
fiscal year 2007. This amount is the same as the President's
request and $452,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)
Limitation, 2006........................................ $16,166,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 16,166,000
House allowance......................................... 16,166,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,166,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the
trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General
activities totaling $16,166,000 for fiscal year 2007. This
amount is $452,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level, and the same as the President's request.
government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $8,393,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,780,260,000
House allowance......................................... 8,780,260,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,780,260,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation covers the Government's share of the
cost of health insurance for annuitants covered by the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program and the Retired Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1960, as well as
administrative expenses incurred by OPM for these programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,780,260,000
for Government payments for annuitants, employees health
benefits.
government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 39,000,000
House allowance......................................... 39,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Public Law 96-427, the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance Act of 1980 requires that all employees under the age
of 65 who separate from the Federal Government for purposes of
retirement on or after January 1, 1990, continue to make
contributions toward their basic life insurance coverage after
retirement until they reach the age of 65. These retirees will
contribute two-thirds of the cost of the basic life insurance
premium, identical to the amount contributed by active Federal
employees for basic life insurance coverage. As with the active
Federal employees, the Government is required to contribute
one-third of the cost of the premium for basic coverage. OPM,
acting as the payroll office on behalf of Federal retirees, has
requested, and the Committee has provided, the funding
necessary to make the required Government contribution
associated with annuitants' postretirement life insurance
coverage.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,000,000
for the Government payment for annuitants, employee life
insurance. This amount equals the budget request.
payment to civil service retirement and disability fund
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $10,072,000,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 10,532,000,000
House allowance......................................... 10,532,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,532,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The civil service retirement and disability fund was
established in 1920 to administer the financing and payment of
annuities to retired Federal employees and their survivors. The
fund covers the operation of the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System.
This appropriation provides for the Government's share of
retirement costs, transfers of interest on the unfunded
liability and annuity disbursements attributable to military
service, and survivor annuities to eligible former spouses of
some annuitants who did not elect survivor coverage.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$10,532,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and
disability fund. The Committee recommendation equals the budget
estimate.
Office of Special Counsel
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $15,172,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 15,937,000
House allowance......................................... 15,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel [OSC] was first
established on January 1, 1979. From 1979 until 1989, it
operated as an autonomous investigative and prosecutorial arm
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board). In 1989,
Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act, which made
OSC an independent agency within the Executive Branch. In 1994,
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
became law. It defined employment-related rights of persons in
connection with military service, prohibited discrimination
against them because of that service, and gave OSC new
authority to pursue remedies for violations by Federal
agencies.
OSC investigates Federal employee allegations of prohibited
personnel practices and, when appropriate, prosecutes cases
before the Merit Systems Protection Board and enforces the
Hatch Act. OSC also provides a channel for whistleblowing by
Federal employees, and may transmit whistleblowing allegations
to the agency head concerned and require an agency
investigation and a report to Congress and the President when
appropriate.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,000,000
for the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is $63,000 above
President's budget request and is $828,000 above the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
In the past, the Committee has been disappointed with the
level of communication from OSC. The Committee is encouraged,
however, by the recent level of communication and
responsiveness from OSC. The Committee directs the Office of
Special Counsel to submit its fiscal year 2008 budget
justification on the first Monday in February, concurrent with
the official submission of the President's budget to Congress.
The justification should include highly detailed data and
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests,
including tables that detail OSC's programs, activities and
staffing levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The Committee
expects that OSC will coordinate with the Committee on
Appropriations well in advance on its planned budget submission
in support of the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
The Committee reiterates the recommendation that the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] made in its March 2004
report (GAO-04-36) and directs that OSC submit to Congress a
comprehensive strategy addressing capital needs and case
processing in order to prevent any future backlog of cases when
submitting their fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee
directs OSC to provide quarterly staffing reports from the
Special Counsel to Congress.
While the Committee has not included the breakdown of OSC
funds by field office as contained in the fiscal year 2007
budget justification, the Committee expects OSC to adhere to
this structure. The Committee further directs OSC to
communicate with the Committee 45 days in advance of any
organizational change, if such a change would cause the
geographic staffing numbers to vary above or below the
following levels; Office of Special Counsel headquarters: 70 to
75 FTEs, the Detroit office: 6 to 8 FTEs, the Dallas office: 9
to 11 FTEs, the Bay Area office: 8 to 10 FTEs, and the District
of Columbia field office: 9 to 12 FTEs. Thus the total number
of FTEs for the Office of Special Counsel should not be below
102 or above 116.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $24,750,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 24,225,000
House allowance......................................... 24,255,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,255,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements.
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary
vehicle by which personnel will be brought into the military if
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the
draft.
In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a
postmobilization-health-care-personnel-delivery system capable
of providing the necessary critically skilled health-care
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An
automated system capable of handling mass registration and
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby
products, such as a compliance system for health care
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,255,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $495,000 below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. The Committee also prohibits the use of any
funds to support the Corporation for National and Community
Service.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,782,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 2,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs
and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government
as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists
of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Labor, and Transportation; and other entities as deemed
appropriate.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as
the budget request and $218,000 more than the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions
authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act. Bill language is included that extends the
reauthorization for the ICH until October 1, 2007.
The Committee continues to support strongly the mission of
ICH and its efforts in ending homelessness. The Committee
continues to believe that a comprehensive and coordinated
strategy must be made by the Federal, State, and local
governments to end and prevent homelessness in this Nation. ICH
has been successful working with State and local officials in
developing 10-year plans to end homelessness, however, it is
unclear whether all Federal agencies are fully participating in
this effort. Accordingly, the Committee directs the ICH to
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the efforts of every Federal agency member of
the ICH in ending and preventing homelessness. This report
should be submitted by no later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
The Committee commends the Council's efforts in engaging
communities on the issue of homelessness. These efforts have
led to the establishment of 10-year plans to end homelessness
throughout the Nation. While the Committee understands that
engaging local and State communities are a critical part of
ending homelessness, coordination and commitment among the
relevant Federal agencies must be made. As required under the
McKinney-Vento Homelessness Act, the ICH convenes workshops on
various aspects of homelessness. One of those areas of interest
to the Committee is homelessness among children, youth, and
families. Accordingly, the Committee directs the ICH to convene
one of its workshops on this issue. This workshop should
include representatives from those Federal agencies and
programs serving homeless children, youth, and families. The
workshop should focus on: (1) identifying how such agencies and
programs may improve coordination; (2) developing promising
practices in service delivery, program development, and
leveraging resources in urban, suburban, and rural areas; and
(3) collecting information on the nature, extent, and impact of
homelessness on children, youth, and families, and the Federal
efforts to serve and meet their needs. The Council is further
directed to report to the Committee on a quarterly basis on
steps being taken by the agencies and the Council as a result
of the workshop.
United States Postal Service
PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $115,917,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 79,915,000
House allowance......................................... 108,915,000
Committee recommendation................................ 108,915,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal
Service in 1971 as an independent establishment of the
executive branch of the United States Government. The Postal
Service basic function and obligation is to provide postal
services to bind the Nation together through the personal,
educational, literary, and business correspondence of the
people. It shall provide prompt, reliable and efficient
services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal
services to all communities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $108,915,000 in fiscal
year 2007 funding and advanced appropriations for payments to
the Postal Service Fund. The increase of $29,000,000 above the
President's request is to provide funds for overseas voting for
prior years' liability under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of
1993.
This amount includes: $60,725,000 requested for free mail
for the blind and overseas voting; $19,190,000 as a
reconciliation adjustment for 2004 actual mail volume of free
mail for the blind and overseas voting; and $29,000,000 for
prior years' liability under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of
1993. In addition to these funds, $73,000,000 (an advance
appropriation from 2005 for the 2005 costs and the 2002
reconciliation adjustment for free mail for the blind and
overseas voting) will become available to the U.S. Postal
Service in fiscal year 2006.
Revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail enables
postage rates to be set at levels below the unsubsidized rates
for certain categories of mail as authorized by subsections (c)
and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code. Free
mail for the blind and overseas voters will continue to be
provided at the funding level recommended by the Committee.
The Committee includes provisions in the bill that would
assure that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind
shall continue to be free; that 6-day delivery and rural
delivery of mail shall continue without reduction; and that
none of the funds provided be used to consolidate or close
small rural and other small post offices in fiscal year 2007.
These are services that must be maintained in fiscal year 2007
and beyond.
The Committee believes that 6-day mail delivery is one of
the most important services provided by the Federal Government
to its citizens. Especially in rural and small town America,
this critical postal service is the linchpin that serves to
bind the Nation together.
Emergency Preparedness.--The Committee remains interested
and concerned about the progress of the Postal Service's
biohazardous detection system, particularly the ability to
detect more than one agent. The Postal Service shall continue
to update the Committee on the progress of this effort as well
as the effort to construct the Washington, DC mail irradiation
facility.
Consolidation of Mail Processing Facilities.--The Postal
Service is developing and implementing a major realignment of
its postal facilities and streamlining its transportation
networks to achieve greater efficiencies, reduce redundancies,
and achieve cost savings. To date, the Service has announced
that it is studying the feasibility of consolidating about 50
of its over 400 mail processing facilities. The Service expects
to continue its consolidation feasibility study and review
processes through 2007 and beyond. Many questions remain about
how the Service plans to realign its postal networks and
workforce. These include how many facilities will be needed,
which facilities will be closed, and what roles various
facilities will serve. Additionally, it is uncertain how the
postal workforce, mailers, and communities will be impacted by
the Service's realignment decisions. Finally, it is unknown how
long it will take to complete the realignment. These questions
should be answered prior to the continuation of these efforts.
In April 2005, GAO issued a report entitled, U.S. Postal
Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its Mail
Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and
Accountability (GAO-05-261). The report concluded that the
Service's realignment strategy lacked sufficient transparency
and accountability as well as criteria to ensure that the
decisions made are clear, consistent, and fair. The decisions
also excluded stakeholder input and lacked performance measures
to evaluate the results and provide accountability for
realignment decisions. GAO's report recommended that the
Service take actions to address these deficiencies by
establishing a set of criteria to be used for making
realignment decisions, developing a mechanism for communicating
with stakeholders regarding realignment proposals and
decisions. The report further suggested the development of a
process for measuring and evaluating the results in areas such
as cost savings, achieved efficiency, and impact on postal
services. GAO has received several congressional requests to
follow up on its recommendations, determining what progress the
Service has made. A review in this area has recently been
initiated.
The Committee directs that consolidation decisions
pertaining to Sioux City, Iowa, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and
Yakima, Washington, will not be implemented until the Postal
Service receives the GAO's follow-up report to its April 2005
study, which is underway. The Postal Service shall establish
detailed criteria for the decisionmaking process prior to the
implementation of any contested consolidations. The Postal
Service shall keep the Committee informed of its consolidation
plans and further directs GAO to continue the monitoring these
efforts.
Forever Stamp.--The Committee commends the Postal Service
on its plan to create a ``Forever Stamp,'' which would remain
valid for letter postage even after future rate changes. This
innovation would make postal rate changes far easier for
household mailers, who are the main users of adhesive postage
stamps. Consumers would avoid both the inconvenience of
obsolete, leftover stamps and the need for last-minute trips to
the post office to buy makeup stamps. The Committee commends
the Postal Service for its efforts to develop innovative
proposals such as the ``Forever Stamp,'' and trusts that the
Postal Service will continue to find new ways to make the mail
a more attractive and user-friendly communications medium for
the American household.
United States Tax Court
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $47,518,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 47,110,000
House allowance......................................... 47,110,000
Committee recommendation................................ 47,110,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the
legislative branch established under article I of the
Constitution of the United States. The court is composed of a
chief judge and 18 judges. Decisions by the court are
reviewable by the U.S. Courts of Appeals and, if certiorari is
granted, by the Supreme Court.
In their judicial duties the judges are assisted by senior
judges, who participate in the adjudication of regular cases,
and by special trial judges, who hear small tax cases and
certain regular cases assigned to them by the chief judge.
The court conducts trial sessions throughout the United
States, including Hawaii and Alaska. The matters over which the
Court has jurisdiction are set forth in various sections of
title 26 of the United States Code.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,110,000
for the U.S. Tax Court.
STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriation bill
includes general provisions which govern both the activities of
the agencies covered by the bill, and, in some cases,
activities of agencies, programs, and general government
activities that are not covered by the bill. General provisions
that are governmentwide in scope are contained in title VIII of
this bill.
The bill contains a number of general provisions that have
been carried in this bill for years and which are routine in
nature and scope. General provisions in the bill are explained
under this section of the report. Those general provisions that
deal with a single agency only are shown immediately following
that particular agency's or department's appropriation accounts
in the bill. Those provisions that address activities or
directives affecting all of the agencies covered in this bill
are contained in title VII.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT
Section 701 requires pay raises to be absorbed within
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations
acts.
Section 702 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this act.
Section 703 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so
provided herein.
Section 704 limits expenditures for consulting service
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
Section 705 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred
without express authority.
Section 706 prohibits the use of funds to engage in
activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307
of the 1930 Tariff Act (46 Stat. 590).
Section 707 protects employment rights of Federal employees
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the
Armed Forces.
Section 708 prohibits the use of funds in compliance with
the Buy American Act.
Section 709 prohibits funding for any person or entity
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 710 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by
this act.
Section 711 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances
may remain available for certain purposes.
Section 712 restricts the use of funds for the White House
to request official background reports without the written
consent of the individual who is the subject of the report.
Section 713 ensures that the cost accounting standard shall
not apply with respect to a contract under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program.
Section 714 references non-foreign area cost of living
allowances.
Section 715 waives restrictions on the purchase of non-
domestic articles, materials, and supplies in the case of
acquisition by the Federal Government of information
technology.
Section 716 prohibits the use of funds for a proposed rule
related to the determination that real estate brokerage
activities are financial activities.
Section 717 requires departments and agencies under this
act to disclose information regarding all sole source
contracts.
Section 718 continues the provision prohibiting the use of
funds for eminent domain unless such taking is employed for
public use but does not repeat the requirement for a study by
the Government Accountability Office.
Sectio 719 provides flexibility to the Inspector Generals
who are required to conduct an independent, third-party review
of each agency's implementation of section 522 and allows the
Inspector Generals to conduct the review either in-house or by
contract.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNMENT-WIDE, DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND
CORPORATIONS
Section 801 authorizes agencies to pay travel costs of the
families of Federal employees on foreign duty to return to the
United States in the event of death or a life threatening
illness of an employee.
Section 802 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free from the
illegal use of controlled substances.
Section 803 continues the provision regarding price
limitations on vehicles purchased by the Federal Government.
Section 804 allows funds made available to agencies for
travel to also be used for quarters allowances and cost-of-
living allowances.
Section 805 prohibits the Government, with certain
specified exceptions, from employing non-U.S. citizens whose
posts of duty would be in the continental United States.
Section 806 ensures that agencies will have authority to
pay the General Services Administration bills for space
renovation and other services.
Section 807 allows agencies to finance the costs of
recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds from the
sale of materials recovered through such programs.
Section 808 provides that funds may be used to pay rent and
other service costs in the District of Columbia.
Section 809 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay
the salary of any nominee after the Senate voted not to approve
the nomination.
Section 810 precludes interagency financing of groups
absent prior statutory approval.
Section 811 authorizes the Postal Service to employ guards.
Section 812 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for
enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the
applicable law of the United States.
Section 813 limits the pay increases of certain prevailing
rate employees.
Section 814 limits the amount that can be used for
redecoration of offices under certain circumstances.
Section 815 permits interagency funding of national
security and emergency preparedness telecommunications
initiatives, which benefit multiple Federal departments,
agencies, and entities.
Section 816 requires agencies to certify that a schedule C
appointment was not created solely or primarily to detail the
employee to the White House.
Section 817 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free from
discrimination and sexual harassment.
Section 818 prohibits the use of funds to prevent Federal
employees from communicating with Congress or to take
disciplinary or personnel actions against employees for such
communication.
Section 819 prohibits training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
Section 820 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the
implementation of agreements in certain nondisclosure policies
unless certain provisions are included in the policies.
Section 821 prohibits use of appropriated funds for
publicity or propaganda designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress.
Section 822 prohibits use of appropriated funds by an
agency to provide Federal employees home address to labor
organizations.
Section 823 prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
provide nonpublic information such as mailing or telephone
lists to any person or organization outside of the Government.
Section 824 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for
publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not
authorized by Congress.
Section 825 directs agencies employees to use official time
in an honest effort to perform official duties.
Section 826 authorizes the use of current fiscal year funds
to finance an appropriate share of the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board.
Section 827 authorizes agencies to transfer funds to or
reimburse the Government-wide Policy account of GSA to finance
an appropriate share of various government-wide boards and
councils.
Section 828 authorizes breastfeeding at any location in a
Federal building or on Federal property.
Section 829 permits interagency funding of the National
Science and Technology Council.
Section 830 requires identification of the Federal agencies
providing Federal funds and the amount provided for all
proposals, solicitations, grant applications, forms,
notifications, press releases, or other publications related to
the distribution of funding to a State.
Section 831 continues a provision which extends the
authorization for franchise fund pilots for 1 year with
modification.
Section 832 continues a provision prohibiting the use of
funds to monitor personal information relating to the use of
Federal internet sites.
Section 833 continues a provision regarding contraceptive
coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
Section 834 recognizes the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the
official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and
Paralympic sports in the United States.
Section 835 allows departments and agencies to participate
in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot programs.
Section 836 places certain limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship program.
Section 837 prohibits the expenditure of funds for the
acquisition of certain additional Federal Law Enforcement
Training facilities.
Section 838 provides funding for the Midway Atoll Airfield.
Section 839 concerns the use of funds for the ``e-Gov''
initiative that were not appropriated specifically for that
purpose.
Section 840 establishes a set of outsourcing contracting
requirements that provide an even playing field for the private
and public sector.
Section 841 provides for a 2.7 percent increase in the
basic pay of Federal civilian employees.
Section 842 provides requirements for prepackaged news
stories that are prepared or funded by that executive branch
agency.
Section 843 continues the provision prohibiting funds used
in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United States Code
or section 522.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Section 844 requires each Department and Agency to evaluate
the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the
individual a government purchase charge card or travel card.
Section 845 requires Federal agencies to report to Congress
on the amount of acquisitions they make from entities that
manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside of the
United States in that fiscal year.
Section 846 prohibits the use of funds to enforce a
provision of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations that impedes
sales to Cuba.
TITLE IX
AIR TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM LOVE FIELD
Section 901. This section provides modifications to allow
air carriers to offer for sale and provide through service and
ticketing to or from Love Field, Texas through any point within
Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama.
Section 902. This section prohibits air transportation
between Love Field and any point or points outside the United
States on a non-stop basis.
Section 903. This section limits the use of charter
flights, among other things, to within the 50 States.
Section 904. This section sets a number of requirements for
any changes to this legislation.
Section 905. This section provides initial jurisdiction to
the District Court of the United States for the Northern
District of Texas for any claims arising under this title.
Section 906. This section limits the provisions of this
title to actions taken at Love Field, Texas with the FAA
provided authority to determine within 30 days as to whether
this agreement can be accommodated in compliance with FAA
safety standards.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee recommends the following appropriations which
lack authorization:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation: Payments to air
carriers
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and operations
Alaska railroad rehabilitation
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Surface Transportation Board
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices:
Salaries and expenses
Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Program
Air Transportation Stabilization Program
Treasury Building and annex, repair and restoration
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Rural Housing and Economic Development
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
The White House Office, salaries and expenses
Executive Residence at the White House, operating expenses
Special Assistance to the President, salaries and expenses
Council of Economic Advisers
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Salaries and expenses
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
High-intensity drug trafficking areas
Other Federal Drug Control (except Drug-Free Communities)
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
General Services Administration:
Federal buildings fund
Repairs and Alterations Construction and Acquisition of
Facilities
National Transportation Safety Board
Office of Government Ethics, salaries and expenses
Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Performance
Fund
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 20, 2006,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5631, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute; S. 3708, an original
bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
H.R. 5576, making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and
H.R. 5385, making appropriations for Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the
title; with each bill subject to further amendment and each
subject to the budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a
quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the
Senate. deg.
TITLE 40--PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE II--PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
PART A--GENERAL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 33--ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND ALTERATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3313. Delegation
(a) When Allowed.--Except for the authority contained in
section 3305(b) of this title, the carrying out of the duties
and powers of the Administrator of General Services under this
chapter, in accordance with standards the Administrator
prescribes--
(1) shall be delegated on request to the
appropriate [executive] federal agency when the
estimated cost of the project does not exceed $100,000;
and
(2) may be delegated to the appropriate [executive]
federal agency when the Administrator determines that
delegation will promote efficiency and economy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 8--LOW-INCOME HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1437f. Low-income housing assistance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(o) Voucher program
* * * * * * *
(13) PHA project-based assistance
(A) In general
* * * * * * *
(H) Rent calculation
A housing assistance payment contract
pursuant to this paragraph shall establish
rents for each unit assisted in an amount that
does not exceed 110 percent of the applicable
fair market rental (or any exception payment
standard approved by the Secretary pursuant to
paragraph (1)(D)), except that if a contract
covers a dwelling unit that has been allocated
low-income housing tax credits pursuant to
section 42 of title 26 and is not located in a
qualified census tract (as such term is defined
in subsection (d) of such section 42), the rent
for such unit may be established at any level
that does not exceed the rent charged for
comparable units in the building that also
receive the low-income housing tax credit but
do not have additional rental assistance,
except that in the case of a contract unit that
has been allocated low-income housing tax
credits and for which the rent limitation
pursuant to such section 42 is less than the
amount that would otherwise be permitted under
this subparagraph, the rent for such unit may,
in the sole discretion of a public housing
agency, be established at the higher section 8
rent, subject only to paragraph (10)(A). The
rents established by housing assistance payment
contracts pursuant to this paragraph may vary
from the payment standards established by the
public housing agency pursuant to paragraph
(1)(B), but shall be subject to paragraph
(10)(A).
(I) Rent adjustments
A housing assistance payments contract
pursuant to this paragraph shall provide for
rent adjustments, except that--
(i) the adjusted rent for any unit
assisted shall be reasonable in
comparison with rents charged for
comparable dwelling units in the
private, unassisted, local market and
may not exceed the maximum rent
permitted under subparagraph (H),
except that the contract may provide
that the maximum rent permitted for a
dwelling unit shall not be less than
the initial rent for the dwelling unit
under the initial housing assistance
payments contract covering the unit;
and
* * * * * * *
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
PART B--MOTOR CARRIERS, WATER CARRIERS, BROKERS, AND FREIGHT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 13102. Definitions
In this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Foreign motor carrier.--The term ``foreign
motor carrier'' means a person (including a motor
carrier of property but excluding a motor private
carrier)--
(A)(i) that is domiciled in a contiguous
foreign country; or
(ii) that is owned or controlled by persons
of a contiguous foreign country; and
(B) in the case of a person that is not a
motor carrier of property, that provides
interstate transportation of property by
[commercial motor vehicle (as defined in
section 31132)] motor vehicle under an
agreement or contract entered into with a motor
carrier of property (other than a motor private
carrier or a motor carrier of property
described in subparagraph (A)).
(7) Foreign motor private carrier.--The term
``foreign motor private carrier'' means a person
(including a motor private carrier but excluding a
motor carrier of property)--
(A)(i) that is domiciled in a contiguous
foreign country; or
(ii) that is owned or controlled by persons
of a contiguous foreign country; and
(B) in the case of a person that is not a
motor private carrier, that provides interstate
transportation of property by [commercial motor
vehicle (as defined in section 31132)] motor
vehicle under an agreement or contract entered
into with a person (other than a motor carrier
of property or a motor private carrier
described in subparagraph (A)).
* * * * * * *
(14) Motor carrier.--The term ``motor carrier''
means a person providing [commercial motor vehicle (as
defined in section 31132)] motor vehicle transportation
for compensation.
(15) Motor private carrier.--The term ``motor
private carrier'' means a person, other than a motor
carrier, transporting property by [commercial motor
vehicle (as defined in section 31132)] motor vehicle
when--
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 139--REGISTRATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 13903. Registration of freight forwarders
[(a) In General.--]
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall register a person to
provide service subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III of
chapter 135 as a freight forwarder if the Secretary finds that
the person is fit, willing, and able to provide the service and
to comply with this part and applicable regulations of the
Secretary and the Board.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 13904. Registration of brokers
[(a) In General.--]
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall register, subject to
section 13906(b), a person to be a broker for transportation of
property subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter
135, if the Secretary finds that the person is fit, willing,
and able to be a broker for transportation and to comply with
this part and applicable regulations of the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--ENFORCEMENT; INVESTIGATIONS; RIGHTS; REMEDIES
Sec. 14710. Enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with respect to
transportation of household goods
(a) Enforcement by States.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, [a State authority may] a State
authority other than the attorney general of the state may, as
parens patriae, enforce the consumer protection provisions of
this title that apply to individual shippers, as determined by
the Secretary, and are related to the delivery and
transportation of household goods in interstate commerce. Any
civil action for injunctive relief to enjoin such delivery or
transportation or to compel a person to pay a fine or penalty
assessed under chapter 149 shall be brought in an appropriate
district court of the United States. Any fine or penalty
imposed on a carrier in a proceeding under this subsection
shall be paid, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to
and retained by the State.
[Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the
Secretary or the Board, as the case may be, of any civil action
under subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil action. The
notice shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to
initiate such civil action, except that if it is not feasible
for the State to provide such prior notice, the State shall
provide the notice immediately upon instituting such civil
action.]
(b) Exercise of Enforcement Authority.--The authority of
this section shall be exercised subject to the requirements of
sections 14711(b)-(f) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14711. Enforcement by State attorneys general
(a) * * *
(b) Notice and Consent.--
(1) In general.--The State shall serve written
notice to the Secretary or the Board, as the case may
be, of any civil action under subsection (a) prior to
initiating such civil action. The notice shall include
a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such
civil action. The State may initiate a civil action
under subsection (a) if it is reviewable under
subsection (b)(2).
* * * * * * *
(4) 60-day deadline.--The Secretary or the Board
shall be considered to have consented to any civil
action of a State under this section that is subject to
review under subsection (b)(2) if the Secretary or the
Board has taken no action with respect to the notice
within 60 calendar days after the date on which the
Secretary or the Board received notice under paragraph
(1).
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE VI--MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
PART B--COMMERCIAL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 311--COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--SAFETY REGULATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 31138. Minimum financial responsibility for transporting
passengers
(a) General Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall prescribe regulations to require minimum levels of
financial responsibility sufficient to satisfy liability
amounts established by the Secretary covering public liability
and property damage for the motor vehicle transportation of
passengers for compensation [by commercial motor vehicle] by a
for-hire motor carrier or private motor carrier (as such terms
are defined in section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this
parenthetical phrase) in the United States between a place in a
State and--
* * * * * * *
Sec. 31139. Minimum financial responsibility for transporting property
* * * * * * *
(b) General Requirement and Minimum Amount.--(1) The
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations to
require minimum levels of financial responsibility sufficient
to satisfy liability amounts established by the Secretary
covering public liability, property damage, and environmental
restoration for the motor vehicle transportation of property
for compensation [by commercial motor vehicle] by a for-hire
motor carrier or private motor carrier (as such terms are
defined in section 390.5 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this
parenthetical phrase)in the United States between a place in a
State and--
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
* * * * * * *
SUBPART III--SAFETY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 443--INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 44302. General authority
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Extension of Policies.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall extend through
August 31, [2006,] 2007, and may extend through
December 31, [2006,] 2007, the termination date of any
insurance policy that the Department of Transportation
issued to an air carrier under subsection (a) and that
is in effect on the date of enactment of this
subsection on no less favorable terms to the air
carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the
Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to
such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, to add coverage for losses or injuries to
aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at the limits
carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries as
of such date of enactment and at an additional premium
comparable to the premium charged for third-party
casualty coverage under such policy.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 44303. Coverage
(a) * * *
(b) Air Carrier Liability for Third Party Claims Arising Out
of Acts of Terrorism.--For acts of terrorism committed on or to
an air carrier during the period beginning on September 22,
2001, and ending on December 31, [2006,] 2007, the Secretary
may certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of
terrorism and in the Secretary's judgment, based on the
Secretary's analysis and conclusions regarding the facts and
circumstances of each case, shall not be responsible for losses
suffered by third parties (as referred to in section
205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that
exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such
parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies,
the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds
$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties
arising out of such act, and the Government shall be
responsible for any liability above such amount. No punitive
damages may be awarded against an air carrier (or the
Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this
subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act.
The Secretary may extend the provisions of this subsection to
an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in section 44301) of the
aircraft of the air carrier involved.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
insurance of home equity conversion mortgages for elderly homeowners
Sec. 255. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Limitation on Insurance Authority.--[The aggregate number
of mortgages insured under this section may not exceed
250,000.] In no case may the benefits of insurance under this
section exceed the maximum dollar amount established under
section 203(b)(2) for 1-family residences in the area in which
the dwelling subject to the mortgage under this section is
located. To minimize the risk to the General Insurance Fund,
prior to insuring a mortgage under this section, the Secretary
shall consider the number of mortgages already insured under
this section in that geographic region.
* * * * * * *
McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 209. TERMINATION.
The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of
this title shall terminate, on October 1, [2006] 2007.
* * * * * * *
UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937
* * * * * * *
SEC. 24. * * *
* * * * * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(m) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for grants under this
section $600,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2000
[through 2006] 2007.
* * * * * * *
(n) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this
section after [September 30, 2006] September 30, 2007.
* * * * * * *
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION COMPETITION ACT OF 1979, PUBLIC LAW
96-192
* * * * * * *
Sec. 29. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect
to, and it is found consistent with the public convenience and
necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air,
on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points
within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
and Texas by an air [carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not
offer or provide any through service or ticketing with another
air carrier or foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier
does not offer for sale transportation to or from, and the
flight or aircraft does not serve, any point which is outside
any such State. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to give authority not otherwise provided by law to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any
other officer or employee of the United States, or any other
person.] carrier. Air carriers and, with regard to foreign air
transportation, foreign air carriers, may offer for sale and
provide through service and ticketing to or from Love Field,
Texas, and any domestic or foreign destination through any
point within Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama.
* * * * * * *
GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 1994, PUBLIC LAW 103-356
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 403. FRANCHISE FUND PILOT PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall expire
on [October 1, 2006] October 1, 2007.
* * * * * * *
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998, PUBLIC LAW 105-65
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM
* * * * * * *
SEC. 579. TERMINATION.
``(a) Repeals.--
``(1) Mark-to-market program.--Subtitle A (except
for section 524) is repealed effective [October 1,
2006] October 1, 2011.
``(2) OMHAR.--Subtitle D (except for this section)
is repealed effective October 1, 2004.
``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding the repeal under
subsection (a), the provisions of subtitle A (as in effect
immediately before such repeal) shall apply with respect to
projects and programs for which binding commitments have been
entered into under this Act before [October 1, 2006] October 1,
2011.
* * * * * * *
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998, PUBLIC LAW 105-119
* * * * * * *
Sec. 122. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject
to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized
to establish, for a period of [8 years] 9 years from date of
enactment of this provision, a personnel management
demonstration project providing for the compensation and
performance management of not more than a combined total of 950
employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering,
intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical
positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
* * * * * * *
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 108-447
* * * * * * *
DIVISION H--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 522. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Independent, Third-Party Review.--
[(1) In general.--At least every 2 years, each
agency shall have performed an independent, third party
review of the use of information in identifiable form
as the privacy and data protection procedures of the
agency to--
[(A) determine the accuracy of the
description of the use of information in
identifiable form;
[(B) determine the effectiveness of the
privacy and data protection procedures;
[(C) ensure compliance with the stated
privacy and data protection policies of the
agency and applicable laws and regulations; and
[(D) ensure that all technologies used to
collect, use, store, and disclose information
in identifiable form allow for continuous
auditing of compliance with stated privacy
policies and practices governing the
collection, use and distribution of information
in the operation of the program.
[(2) Purposes.--The purposes of reviews under this
subsection are to--
[(A) ensure the agency's description of the
use of information in an identifiable form is
accurate and accounts for the agency's current
technology and its processing of information in
an identifiable form;
[(B) measure actual privacy and data
protection practices against the agency's
recorded privacy and data protection
procedures;
[(C) ensure compliance and consistency with
both online and offline stated privacy and data
protection policies; and
[(D) provide agencies with ongoing
awareness and recommendations regarding privacy
and data protection procedures.
[(3) Requirements of review.--The Inspector General
of each agency shall contract with an independent,
third party that is a recognized leader in privacy
consulting, privacy technology, data collection and
data use management, and global privacy issues, to--
[(A) evaluate the agency's use of
information in identifiable form;
[(B) evaluate the privacy and data
protection procedures of the agency; and
[(C) recommend strategies and specific
steps to improve privacy and data protection
management.
[(4) Content.--Each review under this subsection
shall include--
[(A) a review of the agency's technology,
practices and procedures with regard to the
collection, use, sharing, disclosure, transfer
and storage of information in identifiable
form;
[(B) a review of the agency's stated
privacy and data protection procedures with
regard to the collection, use, sharing,
disclosure, transfer, and security of personal
information in identifiable form relating to
agency employees and the public;
[(C) a detailed analysis of agency
intranet, network and Websites for privacy
vulnerabilities, including--
[(i) noncompliance with stated
practices, procedures and policies; and
[(ii) risks for inadvertent release
of information in an identifiable form
from the website of the agency; and
[(D) a review of agency compliance with
this Act.]
(d) Inspector General Review.--The Inspector General of
each agency shall periodically conduct a review of the agency's
implementation of this section and shall report the results of
its review to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, the House Committee on
Government Reform, and the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs. The report required by this
review may be incorporated into a related report to Congress
otherwise required by law including, but not limited to, 44
U.S.C. Sec. 3545, the Federal Information Security Management
Act of 2002. The Inspector General may contract with an
independent, third party organization to conduct the review.
* * * * * * *
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A
LEGACY FOR USERS, PUBLIC LAW 109-59
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005
SEC. 4301. * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4305. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS BY STATES.
(a) Termination of Registration Provisions.--
(1) Section 14504, and the item relating to such
section in the analysis for chapter 145, of title 49,
United States Code, are repealed effective on the first
January 1st occurring more than [12] 24 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) The Department of Transportation and the board
of directors for the unified carrier registration plan
shall conclude and complete any and all rulemakings,
final rules, and administrative procedures to
constitute final agency actions and implementation of
all Federal obligations and requirements for the
Uniform Carrier Registration system plan and agreement
under this Act on the first April 1 occurring more than
12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) The Government Accountability Office shall
provide quarterly reports to the Congress on the
progress being made to meet the statutory requirements
of this section.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2007:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Discretionary........................................... 69,000 69,000 NA \1\ 130,172
Mandatory............................................... 19,927 19,927 NA \1\ 19,922
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2007.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 74,199
2008.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 35,623
2009.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 14,082
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,413
2011 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 6,887
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 27,264 NA 24,522
2007.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or
)
Item 2006 Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2006
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses............................................. 84,052 92,742 65,973 92,742 +8,690 ................ +26,769
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................. (2,176) ................ (2,176) (2,255) (+79) (+2,255) (+79)
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary...................... (691) ................ (691) (717) (+26) (+717) (+26)
Office of the General Counsel................................. (15,031) ................ (15,031) (15,681) (+650) (+15,681) (+650)
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.... (11,534) ................ (11,534) (11,934) (+400) (+11,934) (+400)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs..... (8,400) ................ (8,400) (10,002) (+1,602) (+10,002) (+1,602)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.... (2,270) ................ ................ (2,319) (+49) (+2,319) (+2,319)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.......... (21,811) ................ (19,111) (25,108) (+3,297) (+25,108) (+5,997)
Office of Public Affairs...................................... (1,891) ................ ................ (1,932) (+41) (+1,932) (+1,932)
Executive Secretariat......................................... (1,428) ................ ................ (1,478) (+50) (+1,478) (+1,478)
Board of Contract Appeals..................................... (690) ................ (707) (707) (+17) (+707) ................
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........ (1,252) ................ (1,286) (1,286) (+34) (+1,286) ................
Office of Intelligence and Security........................... (2,013) ................ (2,722) ................ (-2,013) ................ (-2,722)
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... (11,776) ................ ................ (12,281) (+505) (+12,281) (+12,281)
Office of emergency transportation............................ (3,089) ................ (4,386) ................ (-3,089) ................ (-4,386)
Office of Intelligence Security and Emergency Response........ ................ ................ (7,041) (7,042) (+7,042) (+7,042) (+1)
User fees..................................................... (-2,500) ................ ................ (-2,500) ................ (-2,500) (-2,500)
Spending of user fees......................................... (2,500) ................ ................ (2,500) ................ (+2,500) (+2,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (84,052) (92,742) (65,973) (92,742) (+8,690) ................ (+26,769)
Office of Civil Rights............................................ 8,465 8,821 8,821 8,821 +356 ................ ................
Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers................ ................ -50,000 -50,000 -50,000 -50,000 ................ ................
Transportation planning, research, and development................ 14,850 8,910 4,910 9,334 -5,516 +424 +4,424
Working capital fund.............................................. (118,014) ................ (120,000) (123,418) (+5,404) (+123,418) (+3,418)
Minority business resource center program......................... 891 891 891 1,287 +396 +396 +396
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ................ ................ ................
Minority business outreach........................................ 2,970 2,970 2,970 2,970 ................ ................ ................
New headquarters building......................................... 49,500 59,400 ................ 59,400 +9,900 ................ +59,400
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)............ 59,400 ................ 67,000 67,000 +7,600 +67,000 ................
General Aviation and Fixed Based Operator Reimbursement (sec. 16,830 ................ ................ ................ -16,830 ................ ................
186).............................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.............................. 236,958 173,734 150,565 241,554 +4,596 +67,820 +90,989
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations........................................................ 8,104,140 8,366,000 8,360,000 8,366,000 +261,860 ................ +6,000
Air traffic organization...................................... (6,562,700) ................ (6,698,728) (6,690,108) (+127,408) (+6,690,108) (-8,620)
Aviation Safety............................................... (948,957) ................ (997,718) (997,718) (+48,761) (+997,718) ................
Commercial Space Transportation............................... (11,641) ................ (11,985) (11,722) (+81) (+11,722) (-263)
Financial Services............................................ (50,473) ................ (92,227) (93,620) (+43,147) (+93,620) (+1,393)
Human Resource Management..................................... (69,244) ................ (87,850) (87,850) (+18,606) (+87,850) ................
Region and Center Operations.................................. (149,237) ................ (272,821) (272,821) (+123,584) (+272,821) ................
Staff Offices................................................. (140,580) ................ (175,392) (175,655) (+35,075) (+175,655) (+263)
Information Services.......................................... (35,751) ................ (36,779) (36,506) (+755) (+36,506) (-273)
Flight Service Stations A-76 transition....................... (148,500) ................ ................ ................ (-148,500) ................ ................
Undistributed reduction....................................... ................ ................ (-13,500) ................ ................ ................ (+13,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 8,104,140 8,366,000 8,360,000 8,366,000 +261,860 ................ +6,000
Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund).............. 2,514,600 2,503,000 3,110,000 2,549,510 +34,910 +46,510 -560,490
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 40,600 ................ ................ ................ -40,600 ................ ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust 136,620 130,000 134,000 135,500 -1,120 +5,500 +1,500
Fund)............................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (3,399,000) (4,000,000) (4,171,000) (4,000,000) (+601,000) ................ (-171,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (3,514,500) (2,750,000) (3,700,000) (3,520,000) (+5,500) (+770,000) (-180,000)
Small community air service development program............... (9,900) ................ (10,000) (10,000) (+100) (+10,000) ................
Airport Cooperative Research Program.......................... (9,900) ................ (10,000) (10,000) (+100) (+10,000) ................
2007 F&E Pop-up contract authority............................ 513,000 607,000 ................ 560,490 +47,490 -46,510 +560,490
Rescission of contract authority (2006 F&E Pop-up)............ -513,000 -607,000 ................ -560,490 -47,490 +46,510 -560,490
Rescission of contract authority (2006 AIP)................... -50,000 -950,000 ................ -180,000 -130,000 +770,000 -180,000
Rescission of contract authority (prior yr Pop-up)............ -469,000 -25,000 -25,000 -25,000 +444,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (2,995,500) (1,775,000) (3,675,000) (3,315,000) (+319,500) (+1,540,000) (-360,000)
War risk insurance program extension.............................. -80,000 ................ -125,000 -125,000 -45,000 -125,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration...................... 11,228,960 11,606,000 11,479,000 11,486,500 +257,540 -119,500 +7,500
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (3,514,500) (2,750,000) (3,700,000) (3,520,000) (+5,500) (+770,000) (-180,000)
Rescissions of contract authority........................... -1,032,000 -1,582,000 -25,000 -765,490 +266,510 +816,510 -740,490
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................. (13,711,460) (12,774,000) (15,154,000) (14,241,010) (+529,550) (+1,467,010) (-912,990)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses............................. (360,992) (372,504) (372,504) (378,504) (+17,512) (+6,000) (+6,000)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (36,032,344) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (+3,054,121) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (35,672,021) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (+3,414,444) ................ ................
(Exempt contract authority)............................... (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(Transfer to NHTSA)....................................... (-121,232) ................ ................ ................ (+121,232) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund)............. ................ ................ -69,608 ................ ................ ................ +69,608
Appalachian development highway system............................ 19,800 ................ ................ 20,000 +200 +20,000 +20,000
Delta Regional Authority.......................................... ................ ................ ................ 20,000 +20,000 +20,000 +20,000
Emergency relief programs (Highway Trust Fund):
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 2,750,000 ................ ................ ................ -2,750,000 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-234)................. 702,363 ................ ................ ................ -702,363 ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (Hwy Trust Fund)................. -1,999,999 ................ -2,000,000 -1,500,983 +499,016 -1,500,983 +499,017
Rescission of contract authority (HTF) (Public Law 109-148)....... -1,143,000 ................ ................ ................ +1,143,000 ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority (HTF) (Public Law 109-234)....... -702,363 ................ ................ ................ +702,363 ................ ................
Additional contract authority (sec. 112).......................... 618,000 ................ ................ ................ -618,000 ................ ................
TIFIA (rescission of contract authority) (sec. 125)............... ................ ................ -100,000 ................ ................ ................ +100,000
Unobligated balances (rescission of contract authority)........... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Unobligated balances (rescission)................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration....................... 244,801 ................ -2,169,608 -1,460,983 -1,705,784 -1,460,983 +708,625
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (35,672,021) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (39,086,465) (+3,414,444) ................ ................
(Transfer out).............................................. (-121,232) ................ ................ ................ (+121,232) ................ ................
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
Rescissions................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Rescissions of contract authority........................... -3,845,362 ................ -2,169,608 -1,500,983 +2,344,379 -1,500,983 +668,625
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................. (32,444,427) (39,825,465) (37,655,857) (38,324,482) (+5,880,055) (-1,500,983) (+668,625)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (213,000) (223,000) (223,000) (223,000) (+10,000) ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (210,870) (223,000) (223,000) (223,000) (+12,130) ................ ................
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund) ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
Rescission of contract authority (HTF)........................ ................ ................ ................ -3,420 -3,420 -3,420 -3,420
(Limitation on obligations)................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
Rescission of contract authority (HTF)........................ ................ ................ ................ -27,123 -27,123 -27,123 -27,123
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (282,000) (294,000) (294,000) (294,000) (+12,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)................................... (279,180) (294,000) (294,000) (294,000) (+14,820) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (490,050) (517,000) (517,000) (517,000) (+26,950) ................ ................
Rescissions of contract authority........................... ................ ................ ................ -30,543 -30,543 -30,543 -30,543
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................. (490,050) (517,000) (517,000) (517,000) (+26,950) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research (General fund)............................ ................ ................ 128,700 123,750 +123,750 +123,750 -4,950
Operations and research (Highway trust fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (110,000) (227,250) (107,750) (107,750) (-2,250) (-119,500) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (108,900) (227,250) (107,750) (107,750) (-1,150) (-119,500) ................
(Transfer from FHWA)...................................... (121,232) ................ ................ ................ (-121,232) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority...................... ................ ................ ................ -6,773 -6,773 -6,773 -6,773
National Driver Register (Highway trust fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (3,960) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (+40) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority...................... ................ ................ ................ -8 -8 -8 -8
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)....................... (578,176) (583,750) (587,750) (583,750) (+5,574) ................ (-4,000)
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402).................... (214,830) (220,000) (220,000) (220,000) (+5,170) ................ ................
Formula grants (Sec. 402(k)).......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Formula grants (Sec. 402(l)).......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)....... (24,750) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (+250) ................ ................
Safety belt performance grants (Sec. 406)............. (123,255) (124,500) (124,500) (124,500) (+1,245) ................ ................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. (118,800) (125,000) (125,000) (125,000) (+6,200) ................ ................
410).................................................
Emergency medical services grants (Sec. 407).......... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
State traffic safety information system improvement (34,155) (34,500) (34,500) (34,500) (+345) ................ ................
grants (Sec. 408)....................................
High visibility enforcement........................... (28,710) (25,000) (29,000) (25,000) (-3,710) ................ (-4,000)
Child safety and booster seat grants.................. (5,940) (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) (+60) ................ ................
Motorcyclist safety................................... (5,940) (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) (+60) ................ ................
Grant administration.................................. (16,014) (17,750) (17,750) (17,750) (+1,736) ................ ................
Rescission of unobligated balances.................... ................ ................ ................ -5,647 -5,647 -5,647 -5,647
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ (572,394) (583,750) (587,750) (583,750) (+11,356) ................ (-4,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........ ................ ................ 128,700 111,322 +111,322 +111,322 -17,378
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (685,254) (815,000) (699,500) (695,500) (+10,246) (-119,500) (-4,000)
(By transfer)....................................... (121,232) ................ ................ ................ (-121,232) ................ ................
Rescissions......................................... ................ ................ ................ -5,647 -5,647 -5,647 -5,647
Rescissions of contract authority................... ................ ................ ................ -6,781 -6,781 -6,781 -6,781
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (806,486) (815,000) (828,200) (806,822) (+336) (-8,178) (-21,378)
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations............................................. 144,490 150,578 150,153 150,578 +6,088 ................ +425
Railroad research and development................................. 54,524 34,650 ................ 34,650 -19,874 ................ +34,650
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Next generation high-speed rail................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation.................................... 9,900 ................ ................ ................ -9,900 ................ ................
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger 490,050 ................ ................ ................ -490,050 ................ ................
Corporation......................................................
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation..... 772,200 500,000 629,000 750,000 -22,200 +250,000 +121,000
Rescission (Public Law 109-148)............................... -8,300 ................ ................ ................ +8,300 ................ ................
Efficiency incentive grants to National Railroad Passenger Corpora- 39,600 400,000 485,000 650,000 +610,400 +250,000 +165,000
tion...........................................................
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation.............. 1,293,550 900,000 1,114,000 1,400,000 +106,450 +500,000 +286,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration...................... 1,510,764 1,085,228 1,264,153 1,585,228 +74,464 +500,000 +321,075
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses, general fund............................. 79,200 85,000 85,000 85,000 +5,800 ................ ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Account)(limitation on obligations)..............................
Office of the Administrator................................... (916) ................ (1,063) (1,063) (+147) (+1,063) ................
Office of Chief Counsel....................................... (4,017) ................ (4,273) (4,273) (+256) (+4,273) ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ (3,121) ................ (3,272) (3,272) (+151) (+3,272) ................
Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs............ (1,345) ................ (1,394) (1,394) (+49) (+1,394) ................
Office of Budget and Policy................................... (8,646) ................ (9,259) (9,259) (+613) (+9,259) ................
Office of Planning............................................ (4,086) ................ (4,718) (4,718) (+632) (+4,718) ................
Office of Program Management.................................. (7,906) ................ (8,403) (8,403) (+497) (+8,403) ................
Office of Demonstration and Innovation........................ (4,716) ................ (4,876) (4,876) (+160) (+4,876) ................
Office of Administration...................................... (7,252) ................ (7,654) (7,654) (+402) (+7,654) ................
Central Account............................................... (16,648) ................ (17,668) (17,668) (+1,020) (+17,668) ................
Regional offices.............................................. (20,546) ................ (22,420) (22,420) (+1,874) (+22,420) ................
National Transit database..................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (79,200) (85,000) (85,000) (85,000) (+5,800) ................ ................
Formula and Bus Grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (6,910,132) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (+352,643) ................ ................
(limitation on obligations)......................................
Formula and Bus Grants (rescission)............................... ................ -28,661 -28,661 -28,661 -28,661 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (6,910,132) (7,234,114) (7,234,114) (7,234,114) (+323,982) ................ ................
Research and University Research Centers.......................... 74,448 61,000 65,000 61,000 -13,448 ................ -4,000
Flexible funding.............................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Trust fund share of expenses (Mass Transit Account, HTF) (6,910,132) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (+352,643) ................ ................
(liquidation of contract authorization)..........................
Capital investment grants......................................... 1,440,682 1,466,000 1,566,000 1,466,000 +25,318 ................ -100,000
Small starts...................................................... ................ ................ -17,760 ................ ................ ................ +17,760
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Transit Administration....................... 1,594,330 1,583,339 1,669,579 1,583,339 -10,991 ................ -86,240
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (6,910,132) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (7,262,775) (+352,643) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................. (8,504,462) (8,846,114) (8,932,354) (8,846,114) (+341,652) ................ (-86,240)
=============================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)........ 16,121 8,000 17,425 17,425 +1,304 +9,425 ................
Maritime Administration
Maritime security program......................................... 154,440 154,440 154,440 154,440 ................ ................ ................
Operations and training........................................... 121,027 115,830 116,442 115,830 -5,197 ................ -612
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 7,500 ................ ................ ................ -7,500 ................ ................
Ship disposal..................................................... 20,790 25,740 25,740 25,740 +4,950 ................ ................
Vessel operations revolving fund.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
Administrative expenses....................................... 4,085 3,317 3,317 3,317 -768 ................ ................
Rescission................................................ ................ -2,000 -2,000 ................ ................ +2,000 +2,000
Guarantee loans subsidy....................................... ................ ................ ................ 30,000 +30,000 +30,000 +30,000
National defense tank vessel program (rescission)................. ................ -74,400 -74,400 -74,400 -74,400 ................ ................
Ship construction (rescission).................................... -2,071 ................ ................ ................ +2,071 ................ ................
Assistance to Small Shipyards..................................... ................ ................ ................ 15,000 +15,000 +15,000 +15,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Maritime Administration.............................. 305,771 222,927 223,539 269,927 -35,844 +47,000 +46,388
=============================================================================================================================
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Hazardous materials safety........................................ 25,877 27,225 27,225 27,225 +1,348 ................ ................
Administrative expenses........................................... 16,070 17,082 17,082 17,082 +1,012 ................ ................
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... 639 639 639 639 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 16,709 17,721 17,721 17,721 +1,012 ................ ................
Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund.......................................... 57,430 56,925 56,925 56,925 -505 ................ ................
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund................................ 14,850 18,810 18,810 18,810 +3,960 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 72,280 75,735 75,735 75,735 +3,455 ................ ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund................................... 198 198 198 198 ................ ................ ................
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund..................... (14,157) (28,328) (28,328) (28,328) (+14,171) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administra- 115,064 120,879 120,879 120,879 +5,815 ................ ................
tion.......................................................
=============================================================================================================================
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Research and development.......................................... 5,716 8,217 6,367 8,217 +2,501 ................ +1,850
Research and special programs..................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................. 61,874 64,143 64,143 64,143 +2,269 ................ ................
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................................. 26,186 22,925 22,925 26,500 +314 +3,575 +3,575
Offsetting collections........................................ -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Surface Transportation Board......................... 24,936 21,675 21,675 25,250 +314 +3,575 +3,575
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Transportation................ 14,304,995 13,262,142 12,901,417 13,206,768 -1,098,227 -55,374 +305,351
Appropriations.......................................... (15,692,265) (14,999,203) (15,251,086) (15,669,273) (-22,992) (+670,070) (+418,187)
Rescissions............................................. (-10,371) (-155,061) (-155,061) (-158,708) (-148,337) (-3,647) (-3,647)
Rescission of contract authority........................ (-4,877,362) (-1,582,000) (-2,194,608) (-2,303,797) (+2,573,565) (-721,797) (-109,189)
Emergency appropriations................................ (3,500,463) ................ ................ ................ (-3,500,463) ................ ................
Offsetting collections.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)................................ (47,271,957) (50,431,240) (51,265,740) (51,081,740) (+3,809,783) (+650,500) (-184,000)
(Exempt contract authority)................................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)............................................... (121,232) ................ ................ ................ (-121,232) ................ ................
(Transfer out).............................................. (-121,232) ................ ................ ................ (+121,232) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................... (62,315,952) (64,432,382) (64,906,157) (65,027,508) (+2,711,556) (+595,126) (+121,351)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation discretionary total.......................... 14,304,995 13,262,142 12,901,417 13,206,768 -1,098,227 -55,374 +305,351
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
Salaries and expenses............................................. 194,626 223,874 223,786 223,874 +29,248 ................ +88
Executive direction........................................... (8,556) (17,501) (8,760) (8,760) (+204) (-8,741) ................
General Counsel............................................... (7,773) ................ (8,741) (8,741) (+968) (+8,741) ................
Economic policies and programs................................ (31,691) (41,947) (41,947) (41,947) (+10,256) ................ ................
Financial policies and programs............................... (26,308) (25,336) (27,086) (25,336) (-972) ................ (-1,750)
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.......................... (39,540) (45,401) (45,401) (45,701) (+6,161) (+300) (+300)
Treasury wide management...................................... (16,675) (20,372) (18,534) (20,072) (+3,397) (-300) (+1,538)
Administration................................................ (63,094) (73,317) (73,317) (73,317) (+10,223) ................ ................
Currency manipulation......................................... (990) ................ ................ ................ (-990) ................ ................
Undesignated reduction........................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-234)................. 1,800 ................ ................ ................ -1,800 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (196,426) (223,874) (223,786) (223,874) (+27,448) ................ (+88)
Office of Foreign Assets Control.................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Department-wide systems and capital investments programs.......... 24,168 34,032 34,032 34,032 +9,864 ................ ................
Office of Inspector General....................................... 16,830 17,352 17,352 18,352 +1,522 +1,000 +1,000
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration................. 131,953 136,469 136,469 136,469 +4,516 ................ ................
Air transportation stabilization program account.................. 2,723 ................ ................ ................ -2,723 ................ ................
Community development financial institutions fund program ac- 54,450 7,821 40,000 55,000 +50 +47,179 +15,000
count............................................................
Treasury building and annex repair and restoration................ 9,900 ................ ................ ................ -9,900 ................ ................
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.............................. 72,894 89,794 84,066 77,321 +4,427 -12,473 -6,745
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Offices................................. 509,344 509,342 535,705 545,048 +35,704 +35,706 +9,343
=============================================================================================================================
Financial Management Service...................................... 233,881 233,654 233,654 233,654 -227 ................ ................
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 90,215 63,964 92,604 92,604 +2,389 +28,640 ................
Spending from proposed user fees.............................. ................ 28,640 ................ ................ ................ -28,640 ................
Offsetting collections........................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 90,215 92,604 92,604 92,604 +2,389 ................ ................
Bureau of the Public Debt......................................... 175,154 177,789 177,789 177,789 +2,635 ................ ................
Payment of government losses in shipment.......................... 1,000 500 500 500 -500 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Dept. of Treasury, non-IRS........................... 1,009,594 1,013,889 1,040,252 1,049,595 +40,001 +35,706 +9,343
=============================================================================================================================
Internal Revenue Service
Tax administration and operations................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Adjusted appropriation........................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Processing, assistance, and management............................ 4,095,212 4,045,122 ................ ................ -4,095,212 -4,045,122 ................
Rescission.................................................... -20,000 ................ ................ ................ +20,000 ................ ................
Taxpayer services................................................. ................ ................ 2,059,151 2,110,000 +2,110,000 +2,110,000 +50,849
Tax law enforcement............................................... 4,678,498 4,762,327 ................ ................ -4,678,498 -4,762,327 ................
Enforcement....................................................... ................ ................ 4,757,126 4,797,126 +4,797,126 +4,797,126 +40,000
Information systems............................................... 1,582,977 1,602,232 ................ ................ -1,582,977 -1,602,232 ................
Operations support................................................ ................ ................ 3,459,152 3,487,000 +3,487,000 +3,487,000 +27,848
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 10,336,687 10,409,681 10,275,429 10,394,126 +57,439 -15,555 +118,697
Business systems modernization.................................... 197,010 167,310 197,060 245,000 +47,990 +77,690 +47,940
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration........................ 20,008 14,846 14,846 14,846 -5,162 ................ ................
Rescission.................................................... -9,000 ................ ................ ................ +9,000 ................ ................
IRS Oversight Board............................................... ................ ................ ................ 2,000 +2,000 +2,000 +2,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Internal Revenue Service............................. 10,544,705 10,591,837 10,487,335 10,655,972 +111,267 +64,135 +168,637
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of the Treasury................. 11,554,299 11,605,726 11,527,587 11,705,567 +151,268 +99,841 +177,980
Appropriations.......................................... (11,581,499) (11,605,726) (11,527,587) (11,705,567) (+124,068) (+99,841) (+177,980)
Rescissions............................................. (-29,000) ................ ................ ................ (+29,000) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
Renewals...................................................... 13,948,858 14,436,200 14,506,200 14,436,200 +487,342 ................ -70,000
Tenant protection vouchers.................................... 178,200 149,300 149,300 149,300 -28,900 ................ ................
Family self-sufficiency coordinators.......................... 47,520 47,500 47,500 47,500 -20 ................ ................
Administrative fees........................................... 1,237,500 1,281,100 1,137,500 1,271,100 +33,600 -10,000 +133,600
Working capital fund.......................................... 5,841 5,900 5,900 5,900 +59 ................ ................
Family Unification............................................ ................ ................ ................ 10,000 +10,000 +10,000 +10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 15,417,919 15,920,000 15,846,400 15,920,000 +502,081 ................ +73,600
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 390,300 ................ ................ ................ -390,300 ................ ................
Advance appropriations........................................ 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ................ ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances.................. -4,200,000 -4,200,000 -4,200,000 -4,200,000 ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Tenant-based rental assistance....................... 15,808,219 15,920,000 15,846,400 15,920,000 +111,781 ................ +73,600
Project-based rental assistance:
Renewals...................................................... 4,890,303 5,526,240 5,326,240 5,526,240 +635,937 ................ +200,000
Contract administrators....................................... 145,728 145,500 145,500 145,500 -228 ................ ................
Working capital fund.......................................... 1,386 3,960 3,960 3,960 +2,574 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Project-based rental assistance...................... 5,037,417 5,675,700 5,475,700 5,675,700 +638,283 ................ +200,000
Public Housing Capital Fund....................................... 2,438,964 2,178,000 2,208,000 2,460,000 +21,036 +282,000 +252,000
Public Housing Operating Fund..................................... 3,564,000 3,564,000 3,564,000 3,660,000 +96,000 +96,000 +96,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing.............. 99,000 ................ ................ 100,000 +1,000 +100,000 +100,000
Native American housing block grants.............................. 623,700 625,680 625,680 625,680 +1,980 ................ ................
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account................ 3,960 5,940 3,960 5,940 +1,980 ................ +1,980
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (116,276) (251,000) (116,276) (251,000) (+134,724) ................ (+134,724)
Native Hawaiian housing block grant............................... 8,727 5,940 8,815 8,815 +88 +2,875 ................
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account............... 891 1,010 1,010 1,010 +119 ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (35,714) (43,000) (43,000) (43,000) (+7,286) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing............................ 27,584,878 27,976,270 27,733,565 28,457,145 +872,267 +480,875 +723,580
Community Planning and Development
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS....................... 286,110 300,100 300,100 295,000 +8,890 -5,100 -5,100
Rural housing and economic development............................ 16,830 ................ ................ 20,000 +3,170 +20,000 +20,000
Community development fund........................................ 4,177,800 3,032,000 4,215,000 4,215,000 +37,200 +1,183,000 ................
Community development fund (sec. 424)............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 11,500,000 ................ ................ ................ -11,500,000 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-234)................. 5,200,000 ................ ................ ................ -5,200,000 ................ ................
Transfer out (emergency) (Public Law 109-234)............. (-27,000) ................ ................ ................ (+27,000) ................ ................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (137,500) ................ ................ (137,500) ................ (+137,500) (+137,500)
Credit subsidy................................................ 2,970 ................ 2,970 3,000 +30 +3,000 +30
Administrative expenses....................................... 743 ................ ................ 750 +7 +750 +750
Brownfields redevelopment......................................... 9,900 ................ ................ ................ -9,900 ................ ................
HOME investment partnerships program.............................. 1,757,250 1,916,640 1,916,640 1,941,640 +184,390 +25,000 +25,000
Homeless assistance grants........................................ 1,326,600 1,535,990 1,535,990 1,511,190 +184,590 -24,800 -24,800
Self-help homeownership opportunity program....................... 60,390 39,700 60,390 66,000 +5,610 +26,300 +5,610
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community Planning and Development................... 24,338,593 6,824,430 8,031,090 8,052,580 -16,286,013 +1,228,150 +21,490
=============================================================================================================================
Housing Programs
Housing for the elderly........................................... 734,580 545,490 746,580 750,000 +15,420 +204,510 +3,420
Housing for persons with disabilities............................. 236,610 118,800 239,610 240,000 +3,390 +121,200 +390
Housing counseling assistance..................................... ................ 44,550 ................ ................ ................ -44,550 ................
Manufactured housing fees trust fund.............................. 13,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 +3,000 ................ ................
Offsetting collections........................................ -13,000 -13,000 -13,000 -16,000 -3,000 -3,000 -3,000
Offsetting collections (leg proposal)......................... ................ -3,000 -3,000 ................ ................ +3,000 +3,000
Rental housing assistance......................................... 26,136 24,750 24,750 24,750 -1,386 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Housing Programs..................................... 997,326 733,590 1,010,940 1,014,750 +17,424 +281,160 +3,810
=============================================================================================================================
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 351,450 351,450 351,450 351,450 ................ ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -1,309,000 -176,000 -176,000 -176,000 +1,133,000 ................ ................
Move prog to gen/spec risk (legislative proposal)............. ................ -358,000 ................ ................ ................ +358,000 ................
Administrative contract expenses.............................. 61,974 62,400 52,400 52,400 -9,574 -10,000 ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. 1,000 ................ ................ ................ -1,000 ................ ................
FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (35,000,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).................................. (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 229,086 229,086 229,086 229,086 ................ ................ ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -339,000 -476,000 -476,000 -476,000 -137,000 ................ ................
Credit subsidy................................................ 8,712 8,600 8,600 8,600 -112 ................ ................
Non-overhead administrative expenses.......................... 71,181 78,111 72,778 78,111 +6,930 ................ +5,333
Additional contract expenses.................................. 4,000 4,000 ................ 4,000 ................ ................ +4,000
Move programs from MMI (leg proposal)......................... ................ 358,000 ................ ................ ................ -358,000 ................
FHA program modernization and reform (Sec. 325)............... ................ ................ -197,000 ................ ................ ................ +197,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration....................... -920,597 81,647 -134,686 71,647 +992,244 -10,000 +206,333
=============================================================================================================================
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).............................. (200,000,000) (100,000,000) (100,000,000) (100,000,000) (-100,000,000) ................ ................
Administrative expenses....................................... 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 ................ ................ ................
Administrative expenses (legislative proposal)................ ................ 43,000 ................ ................ ................ -43,000 ................
Offsetting receipts........................................... -368,000 -181,000 -181,000 -181,000 +187,000 ................ ................
Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal).................... ................ -43,000 ................ ................ ................ +43,000 ................
Additional contract expenses.................................. ................ 7,000 ................ ................ ................ -7,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association.................. -357,300 -163,300 -170,300 -170,300 +187,000 -7,000 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology........................................... 55,787 68,360 55,787 60,000 +4,213 -8,360 +4,213
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities........................................... 45,540 44,550 44,550 44,550 -990 ................ ................
Office of Lead Hazard Control
Lead hazard reduction............................................. 150,480 114,840 149,840 152,000 +1,520 +37,160 +2,160
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses............................................. 573,210 594,000 493,240 594,000 +20,790 ................ +100,760
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fee proposal........................... ................ -4,000 ................ ................ ................ +4,000 ................
Transfer from:
Limitation on FHA corporate funds..................... (562,400) (556,776) (556,776) (550,776) (-11,624) (-6,000) (-6,000)
GNMA.................................................. (10,700) (10,593) (10,700) (10,700) ................ (+107) ................
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program......... (750) ................ ................ (750) ................ (+750) (+750)
Native American Housing Block Grants.................. (150) (148) (149) (149) (-1) (+1) ................
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program............ (250) (248) (248) (248) (-2) ................ ................
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees............... (35) (35) (35) (35) ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ (1,147,495) (1,157,800) (1,061,148) (1,156,658) (+9,163) (-1,142) (+95,510)
Transfer from CDF (emergency) (Public Law 109-234)............ (12,000) ................ ................ ................ (-12,000) ................ ................
Working capital fund.............................................. 195,030 219,780 ................ 219,780 +24,750 ................ +219,780
Transfer from CDF(emergency) (Public Law 109-234)............. (6,000) ................ ................ ................ (-6,000) ................ ................
Office of Inspector General....................................... 81,180 83,240 83,240 91,420 +10,240 +8,180 +8,180
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds).............. (23,760) (23,760) (23,760) (23,760) ................ ................ ................
Transfer from CDF (emergency) (Public Law 109-234)............ (9,000) ................ ................ ................ (-9,000) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... (113,940) (107,000) (107,000) (115,180) (+1,240) (+8,180) (+8,180)
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.................... 60,000 62,000 62,000 67,600 +7,600 +5,600 +5,600
Offsetting receipts........................................... -60,000 -62,000 -62,000 -67,600 -7,600 -5,600 -5,600
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Management and Administration........................ 849,420 893,020 576,480 905,200 +55,780 +12,180 +328,720
=============================================================================================================================
Rescissions:
Housing certificate fund...................................... -2,050,000 -2,000,000 -2,000,000 -2,000,000 +50,000 ................ ................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing.......... ................ -99,000 ................ ................ ................ +99,000 ................
Brownfields Redevelopment..................................... -10,000 ................ ................ ................ +10,000 ................ ................
Community Development Fund.................................... ................ -356,400 ................ ................ ................ +356,400 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... -2,060,000 -2,455,400 -2,000,000 -2,000,000 +60,000 +455,400 ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Department of Housing and Urban Develop- 50,684,127 34,118,007 35,297,266 36,587,572 -14,096,555 +2,469,565 +1,290,306
ment.......................................................
Appropriations...................................... (33,542,827) (33,685,407) (34,205,266) (35,304,172) (+1,761,345) (+1,618,765) (+1,098,906)
Rescissions......................................... (-2,060,000) (-2,455,400) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (+60,000) (+455,400) ................
Advance appropriations.............................. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ................ ................ ................
Emergency appropriations............................ (17,090,300) ................ ................ ................ (-17,090,300) ................ ................
Offsetting receipts................................. (-2,016,000) (-1,234,000) (-1,030,000) (-833,000) (+1,183,000) (+401,000) (+197,000)
Offsetting collections.............................. (-73,000) (-78,000) (-78,000) (-83,600) (-10,600) (-5,600) (-5,600)
(By transfer)....................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................ (420,289,490) (320,294,000) (320,159,276) (320,431,500) (-99,857,990) (+137,500) (+272,224)
(Limitation on corporate funds)......................... (598,045) (591,560) (591,668) (586,418) (-11,627) (-5,142) (-5,250)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of justices.......................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 58,143 61,405 61,405 61,405 +3,262 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 60,143 63,405 63,405 63,405 +3,262 ................ ................
Care of the building and grounds.................................. 5,568 12,959 12,959 12,959 +7,391 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Supreme Court of the United States................... 65,711 76,364 76,364 76,364 +10,653 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges............................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 21,780 24,300 24,000 23,273 +1,493 -1,027 -727
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit............ 23,780 26,300 26,000 25,273 +1,493 -1,027 -727
=============================================================================================================================
United States Court of International Trade
Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges............................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................ ................
Other salaries and expenses................................... 13,345 14,182 14,182 14,182 +837 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. Court of International Trade.................... 15,345 16,182 16,182 16,182 +837 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Salaries and expenses:
Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges...................... 305,312 316,000 316,000 316,000 +10,688 ................ ................
Judges COLA................................................... 4,950 5,000 ................ 5,000 +50 ................ +5,000
Other salaries and expenses................................... 3,998,083 4,366,244 4,240,114 4,262,360 +264,277 -103,884 +22,246
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)................. 18,000 ................ ................ ................ -18,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and expenses............................. 4,326,345 4,687,244 4,556,114 4,583,360 +257,015 -103,884 +27,246
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund............................ 3,795 3,952 3,952 3,952 +157 ................ ................
Defender services................................................. 709,830 803,879 750,033 761,051 +51,221 -42,828 +11,018
Fees of jurors and commissioners.................................. 60,705 63,079 63,079 63,079 +2,374 ................ ................
Court security.................................................... 368,280 410,334 400,334 397,737 +29,457 -12,597 -2,597
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other 5,468,955 5,968,488 5,773,512 5,809,179 +340,224 -159,309 +35,667
Judicial Services..........................................
=============================================================================================================================
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Salaries and expenses............................................. 69,559 75,333 73,800 74,333 +4,774 -1,000 +533
Federal Judicial Center
Salaries and expenses............................................. 22,127 23,787 23,500 23,390 +1,263 -397 -110
Judicial Retirement Funds
Payment to judiciary trust funds.................................. 40,600 58,300 58,300 58,300 +17,700 ................ ................
United States Sentencing Commission
Salaries and expenses............................................. 14,256 15,740 15,500 15,340 +1,084 -400 -160
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, the Judiciary.............................. 5,720,333 6,260,494 6,063,158 6,098,361 +378,028 -162,133 +35,203
Mandatory appropriations................................ (351,912) (380,300) (380,300) (380,300) (+28,388) ................ ................
Discretionary appropriations............................ (5,368,421) (5,880,194) (5,682,858) (5,718,061) (+349,640) (-162,133) (+35,203)
=============================================================================================================================
TITLE V--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED
TO THE PRESIDENT
The White House
Salaries and expenses............................................. ................ 184,252 ................ ................ ................ -184,252 ................
Compensation of the President and the White House Office:
Compensation of the President................................. 450 ................ 450 450 ................ +450 ................
Salaries and expenses......................................... 53,292 ................ 51,952 51,952 -1,340 +51,952 ................
Executive Residence at the White House:
Operating expenses............................................ 12,312 ................ 12,041 12,041 -271 +12,041 ................
White House repair and restoration............................ 1,683 ................ 1,600 1,600 -83 +1,600 ................
Council of Economic Advisers...................................... 4,000 ................ 4,002 4,002 +2 +4,002 ................
Office of Policy Development...................................... 3,465 ................ 3,385 3,385 -80 +3,385 ................
National Security Council......................................... 8,618 ................ 8,405 8,405 -213 +8,405 ................
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board....................... ................ ................ ................ 1,500 +1,500 +1,500 +1,500
Office of Administration.......................................... 88,429 ................ 91,393 91,393 +2,964 +91,393 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, The White House...................................... 172,249 184,252 173,228 174,728 +2,479 -9,524 +1,500
=============================================================================================================================
Office of Management and Budget................................... 76,161 68,780 76,185 76,185 +24 +7,405 ................
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy............................ 26,639 23,309 26,928 11,500 -15,139 -11,809 -15,428
High intensity drug trafficking areas program..................... 224,730 ................ 235,000 227,000 +2,270 +227,000 -8,000
Other Federal drug control programs............................... 192,951 212,160 194,000 214,500 +21,549 +2,340 +20,500
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.......................... 29,700 9,600 19,600 20,000 -9,700 +10,400 +400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy............... 474,020 245,069 475,528 473,000 -1,020 +227,931 -2,528
=============================================================================================================================
Unanticipated needs............................................... 990 11,789 1,000 1,000 +10 -10,789 ................
Unanticipated Needs for Natural Disasters (emerg)................. ................ -11,789 ................ ................ ................ +11,789 ................
Special Assistance to the President............................... 4,410 4,352 4,352 4,352 -58 ................ ................
Official Residence of the Vice President: Operating expenses...... 322 317 317 317 -5 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title V, Executive Office of the President and Funds 728,152 502,770 730,610 729,582 +1,430 +226,812 -1,028
Appropriated to the President..............................
TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board........ 5,882 5,957 5,957 5,957 +75 ................ ................
Consumer Product Safety Commission................................ 62,370 62,370 62,370 62,370 ................ ................ ................
Election Assistance Commission.................................... 14,058 16,908 17,158 17,000 +2,942 +92 -158
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General (30,690) (26,256) (26,256) (26,256) (-4,434) ................ ................
(transfer).......................................................
Federal Election Commission....................................... 54,153 57,138 57,138 57,138 +2,985 ................ ................
Federal Labor Relations Authority................................. 25,213 25,218 25,218 25,218 +5 ................ ................
Federal Maritime Commission....................................... 20,294 21,474 20,294 21,474 +1,180 ................ +1,180
General Services Administration
Federal Buildings Fund
Appropriations.................................................... ................ (243,025) ................ (243,025) (+243,025) ................ (+243,025)
Limitations on availability of revenue:
Construction and acquisition of facilities.................... 792,056 690,095 212,146 708,166 -83,890 +18,071 +496,020
Repairs and alterations....................................... 861,376 866,194 478,363 866,194 +4,818 ................ +387,831
Installment acquisition payments.............................. 168,180 163,999 163,999 163,999 -4,181 ................ ................
Rental of space............................................... 4,046,031 4,322,548 4,322,548 4,322,548 +276,517 ................ ................
Building operations........................................... 1,885,102 2,003,830 2,003,830 2,003,830 +118,728 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... 7,752,745 8,046,666 7,180,886 8,064,737 +311,992 +18,071 +883,851
Repayment of debt............................................. 40,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 +1,000 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148)..................... 38,000 ................ ................ ................ -38,000 ................ ................
Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-234)..................... 37,000 ................ ................ ................ -37,000 ................ ................
Rental income to fund............................................. -7,808,000 -7,844,641 -7,844,641 -7,844,641 -36,641 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Buildings Fund............................... 59,745 243,025 -622,755 261,096 +201,351 +18,071 +883,851
Government-wide policy............................................ 52,268 52,550 52,550 52,550 +282 ................ ................
Operating expenses................................................ 98,891 83,032 80,032 83,032 -15,859 ................ +3,000
Office of Inspector General....................................... 42,976 44,312 44,312 44,312 +1,336 ................ ................
Electronic Government Fund........................................ 2,970 5,000 3,000 5,000 +2,030 ................ +2,000
Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents................. 2,922 3,030 3,030 3,030 +108 ................ ................
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund........................... 14,850 16,866 16,866 16,866 +2,016 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General Services Administration...................... 274,622 447,815 -422,965 465,886 +191,264 +18,071 +888,851
=============================================================================================================================
Merit Systems Protection Board
Salaries and expenses............................................. 35,244 36,531 36,531 36,550 +1,306 +19 +19
Limitation on administrative expenses............................. 2,579 2,579 2,579 2,600 +21 +21 +21
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Merit Systems Protection Board....................... 37,823 39,110 39,110 39,150 +1,327 +40 +40
=============================================================================================================================
Morris K. Udall Foundation
Morris K. Udall Trust Fund........................................ 1,980 ................ 2,000 2,000 +20 +2,000 ................
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund............................. 1,881 693 2,000 2,000 +119 +1,307 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Morris K. Udall Foundation........................... 3,861 693 4,000 4,000 +139 +3,307 ................
=============================================================================================================================
National Archives and Records Administration
Operating expenses................................................ 280,215 289,605 281,605 285,915 +5,700 -3,690 +4,310
Electronic records archive........................................ 37,535 45,455 45,455 48,810 +11,275 +3,355 +3,355
Reduction of debt................................................. -8,488 -10,026 -10,026 -10,026 -1,538 ................ ................
Repairs and restoration........................................... 9,585 13,020 13,020 18,790 +9,205 +5,770 +5,770
National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants 7,425 ................ 7,500 5,000 -2,425 +5,000 -2,500
program..........................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Archives and Records Admin.................. 326,272 338,054 337,554 348,489 +22,217 +10,435 +10,935
=============================================================================================================================
National Credit Union Administration:
Central liquidity facility:
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on admin expenses, corporate funds)........... (323) (331) (331) (331) (+8) ................ ................
Community development revolving loan fund..................... 941 941 941 941 ................ ................ ................
National Transportation Safety Board:
Salaries and expenses......................................... 75,933 79,594 81,594 79,594 +3,661 ................ -2,000
Rescission of unobligated balances........................ -1,000 -1,664 -1,664 -1,664 -664 ................ ................
Emergency Fund (rescission)................................... ................ -1,998 ................ ................ ................ +1,998 ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............................. 116,820 119,790 119,790 119,790 +2,970 ................ ................
Office of Government Ethics....................................... 11,037 11,489 11,489 11,489 +452 ................ ................
Office of Personnel Management
Salaries and expenses............................................. 121,296 111,095 111,095 111,095 -10,201 ................ ................
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... 99,017 126,908 100,178 126,908 +27,891 ................ +26,730
Office of Inspector General....................................... 2,050 1,598 1,598 1,598 -452 ................ ................
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... 16,166 16,166 16,166 16,166 ................ ................ ................
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits............ 8,393,000 8,780,260 8,780,260 8,780,260 +387,260 ................ ................
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance.............. 36,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 +3,000 ................ ................
Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund............... 10,072,000 10,532,000 10,532,000 10,532,000 +460,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Personnel Management....................... 18,739,529 19,607,027 19,580,297 19,607,027 +867,498 ................ +26,730
=============================================================================================================================
Office of Special Counsel......................................... 15,172 15,937 15,937 16,000 +828 +63 +63
Selective Service System.......................................... 24,750 24,255 24,255 24,255 -495 ................ ................
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness................. 1,782 2,000 2,000 2,000 +218 ................ ................
United States Postal Service
Payment to the Postal Service Fund................................ 42,917 ................ 29,000 29,000 -13,917 +29,000 ................
Appropriations available from prior year advances................. 61,092 73,000 73,000 73,000 +11,908 ................ ................
Advance appropriations............................................ 73,000 79,915 79,915 79,915 +6,915 ................ ................
Less appropriations from prior year advances...................... -61,092 -73,000 -73,000 -73,000 -11,908 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, United States Postal Service......................... 115,917 79,915 108,915 108,915 -7,002 +29,000 ................
=============================================================================================================================
United States Tax Court........................................... 47,518 47,110 47,110 47,110 -408 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Total, title VII, Independent Agencies...................... 19,972,947 20,999,133 20,136,498 21,062,139 +1,089,192 +63,006 +925,641
Appropriations.......................................... (19,825,947) (20,922,880) (20,058,247) (20,983,888) (+1,157,941) (+61,008) (+925,641)
Rescissions............................................. (-1,000) (-3,662) (-1,664) (-1,664) (-664) (+1,998) ................
Advance appropriations.................................. (73,000) (79,915) (79,915) (79,915) (+6,915) ................ ................
Emergency appropriations................................ (75,000) ................ ................ ................ (-75,000) ................ ................
(By transfer)........................................... (30,690) (26,256) (26,256) (26,256) (-4,434) ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans)............................ (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ................ ................ ................
(Limitation on corporate funds)......................... (323) (331) (331) (331) (+8) ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Title VIII--General Provisions, This Bill
Scoring adjustment (for 1 percent ATB rescission)................. -10,707 ................ ................ ................ +10,707 ................ ................
Fed Hwys--addl contract authority (1 percent rescission)...... -6,000 ................ ................ ................ +6,000 ................ ................
=============================================================================================================================
Grand total (net)........................................... 102,948,146 86,748,272 86,656,536 89,389,989 -13,558,157 +2,641,717 +2,733,453
Appropriations.......................................... (87,073,023) (87,988,269) (87,835,954) (90,490,843) (+3,417,820) (+2,502,574) (+2,654,889)
Emergency appropriations................................ (20,685,563) (-11,789) ................ ................ (-20,685,563) (+11,789) ................
Offsetting collections.................................. (-73,000) (-78,000) (-78,000) (-83,600) (-10,600) (-5,600) (-5,600)
Rescissions............................................. (-2,117,078) (-2,614,123) (-2,156,725) (-2,160,372) (-43,294) (+453,751) (-3,647)
Rescission of contract authority........................ (-4,877,362) (-1,582,000) (-2,194,608) (-2,303,797) (+2,573,565) (-721,797) (-109,189)
Negative subsidy receipts............................... (-2,016,000) (-1,234,000) (-1,030,000) (-833,000) (+1,183,000) (+401,000) (+197,000)
Advance appropriations.................................. (4,273,000) (4,279,915) (4,279,915) (4,279,915) (+6,915) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................. (47,271,957) (50,431,240) (51,265,740) (51,081,740) (+3,809,783) (+650,500) (-184,000)
(Exempt contract authority)............................. (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) (739,000) ................ ................ ................
(By transfer)....................................... (151,922) (26,256) (26,256) (26,256) (-125,666) ................ ................
(Transfer out)...................................... (-121,232) ................ ................ ................ (+121,232) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................................... (150,959,103) (137,918,512) (138,661,276) (141,210,729) (-9,748,374) (+3,292,217) (+2,549,453)
=============================================================================================================================
Discretionary total............................................... 84,093,784 67,016,212 66,924,026 69,657,479 -14,436,305 +2,641,267 +2,733,453
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------