[House Report 110-238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-238
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008
_______
July 18, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Olver, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3074]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill Report
Major challenges facing transportation and housing over the
next decade............................................
Projects...................................................
Solvency of highway trust fund.............................
The effect of guaranteed spending..........................
Operating plan and reprogramming procedures................
Relationship with budget offices...........................
Tabular summary............................................
Committee hearings.........................................
Program, project, and activity.............................
Title I--Department of Transportation......................
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......
Title III--Related Agencies................................
Title IV--General Provisions...............................
House of Representatives Report Requirements:
Constitutional authority...................
Statement of general performance goals and
objectives.............................
Appropriations not authorized by law.......
Transfers of funds.........................
Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e)
(Ramseyer rule)........................
Recissions.................................
Changes in the application of existing law.
Comparison with the budget resolution......
Five-year outlay projections...............
Financial assistance to state and local
governments............................
Earmarks...................................
Tabular summary of the bill................
Major Challenges Facing Transportation and Housing Over the Next Decade
Earlier this year, the Committee held a series of hearings
to explore the emerging challenges facing our nation's
transportation and housing programs over the next decade. The
testimony the Committee received from housing and
transportation experts made clear that demographic changes and
growth patterns in the United States will continue to have a
major impact on transportation networks and the need for
affordable housing.
Some areas of the nation are losing population and as a
result, lack an adequate tax base or the necessary resources to
make investments in transportation and housing.
Other areas of our nation are growing dramatically. For
example, the population of the United States recently reached
300 million, and is expected to grow by another 65 million by
the year 2030. The 30 largest metropolitan statistical areas as
defined by the U.S. census bureau now represent close to half
(45 percent) of the country's total population. From 1990 to
2005, the population of 15 of the 30 largest metropolitan areas
grew by over 20 percent, with some metro areas in Florida,
Arizona, California, and Georgia growing by over 50 percent.
Each region has its own unique set of challenges in
managing population growth. The existing transportation
networks in older metropolitan areas in the Northeast and
Midwest will continue to have increasing repair and maintenance
needs, as well as demand for new transit service. The
metropolitan areas that have seen the most explosive growth,
mostly in the South and West, will continue to require new
investments in highway, transit, and aviation to keep up with
traveling demand.
Explosive population growth, combined with the rise of
households with two automobiles and increasingly decentralized
and unplanned patterns of growth present significant challenges
for the nation's transportation, housing, and energy policies
on the federal, state, and local level.
Increasing congestion has become the most noticeable
consequence of these demographic changes. As residential
communities become more separated from employment areas,
traffic congestion has become a part of everyday life for many
families.
Vehicle-miles traveled on our nation's highways have grown
nearly 94 percent from roughly 1.53 trillion miles in 1980 to
nearly 3 trillion miles in 2005. According to the Texas
Transportation Institute, in 2003 drivers in the 85 most
congested urban areas in the United States experienced 3.7
billion hours of travel delay, an annual average delay of 47
hours per commuter. Furthermore, congestion caused travelers to
use 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel for a total cost of
$63,100,000,000 or $794 per commuter.
Increased travel demand will continue to deteriorate
existing transportation networks and put pressure on states to
build more capacity. The Department of Transportation estimates
that $53,600,000,000 per year will be required to sustain the
nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems. A far higher
level of investment, $74,800,000,000 would be required each
year to improve these systems. With regard to transit, it is
estimated that an annual investment of $24,000,000,000 would be
necessary to improve the condition and performance of our
nation's public transportation systems.
In addition, while Amtrak, our nation's intercity passenger
rail system, has made some progress in increasing ridership and
revenues, much work remains ahead before higher speed rail is
realized in corridors outside the Northeast.
Our nation's transportation challenges are not just limited
to surface transportation. Our aviation system also continues
to grow. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the number of airline
passengers grew by 36 percent from 545 million per year to 739
million. By 2015, our aviation system is expected to transport
as many as one billion passengers. Additionally, our nation's
air traffic control system is aging and is in need of
modernization in order to accommodate the growth in air traffic
and the expected changes in the aviation fleet.
Our nation also faces great challenges in the area of
housing. Providing adequate affordable housing near employment
opportunities and public transportation will be daunting.
Currently, there are nearly 14 million households with incomes
below 50 percent of adjusted median income (AMI) which are
eligible for federal housing assistance, however, only 25
percent of these eligible households actually receive federal
housing assistance.
As such, the Committee recognizes that a great unmet need
exists for affordable housing throughout the country. For
example, only 2.1 million Section 8 vouchers are authorized
despite the fact that an estimated 8 million families and
individuals are eligible for this assistance.
In public housing, the situation is no better. Public
housing is home to 2.6 million people, including seniors,
persons with disabilities, and low-income families. In 2005,
the median income of families in the public housing program was
$10,738, only 23 percent of the national median household
income of $46,326. Public housing is a valuable social and
economic asset that cannot be created or sustained by the
private market. In fact, it would cost an estimated
$162,000,000,000 to replace the existing stock of 1.2 million
public housing units, yet the budget request for public housing
is perennially too low to support annual capital needs, much
less address the $18 billion backlog in capital needs. More
than half of public housing units were constructed prior to
1970 and are in need of rehabilitation and serious capital
investment. The Committee recognizes that public housing is an
irreplaceable asset and that it will require significant
capital investment to continue to provide its 2.6 million
residents with safe and affordable homes.
The Committee is cognizant of the fact that it must begin
to address the shortage of affordable housing for families,
seniors and the disabled immediately. It is also incumbent upon
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to explore new
means of financing and innovative methods of partnering with
nonprofits and with the private sector to spur more housing
production.
In addition to the budgetary challenges presented above,
the Committee strongly believes that transportation, housing,
and energy can no longer be viewed as completely separate
spheres with little or no coordination throughout the different
levels of government. To that effect, the Committee has
included provisions in this report requiring the Departments of
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development to better
coordinate public transportation and housing policies and
programs. Better planning and coordination on the federal,
state, and local level can ensure that affordable housing is
located closer to public transportation and employment centers.
Finally, as the United States continues to grapple with the
catastrophic effects of global warming and other environmental
hazards, the Committee strongly believes that federal policies
must be instituted to reduce the amount of energy consumed by
the transportation and housing sectors. Taken together,
transportation (28 percent) and residential housing (21
percent) produce almost 50 percent of total U.S. energy
consumption. (Source 2004 Energy Data Book, DoE). To this end,
the Committee has included a number of key investments for
public transit and intercity rail. The Committee has also
included language urging HUD to incorporate stronger
sustainability standards into HUD's housing programs.
Projects
Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews
funding for the Federal government; reforms which the Committee
takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional
authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars
does not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive
Branch. For example, the Administration requests funding for
specific projects within the Federal Transit Administration's
Capital Investment Grant account and within the Federal
Aviation Administration's Facilities and Equipment account. The
Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a
process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking. When
the Committee reviews the budget request, it goes through a
process of rigorous review and may alter or modify this list to
reflect additional priorities.
In addition, there are designated projects or earmarks
embedded in the surface transportation authorization
legislation. For example, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
includes designated projects or earmarks during each year of
its authorization. For example, in fiscal year 2008 alone,
SAFETEA-LU directs $2,966,400,000 to 5,091 specific projects
under the ``High Priority Projects'' program; $487,000,000 to
33 specific projects under the ``National Corridor
Infrastructure Improvement Program''; $444,750,000 to 25
specific projects under the ``Projects of National and Regional
Significance'' program; $638,809,000 to 466 specific projects
under the ``Transportation Improvements'' program; and
$100,000,000 to nine specific projects under the ``Bridge
Program'' set-aside. Similarly, in the transit program,
SAFETEA-LU directs $492,167,593 to 662 specific bus and clean
fuel bus projects and $22,225,000 to 24 specific transit
research projects.
The Executive Branch also engages in another practice which
steers or directs money to specific entities or purposes
through a process of contracting out various activities and
services. In many work locations, the number of people working
for contractors exceeds the number of Federal employees in the
same building or location. Many of these, in fact, are non-
competitive or sole-sourced. When added together, the Executive
Branch steers or directs far greater spending to specific
projects or corporations than is directed or earmarked by
Congress. And the practice of non-competitive contracting has
exploded in the past five years.
For example:
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Department of Transportation
awarded 225 sole-source contracts totaling more $140 million.
From FY2002-2006, HUD awarded contracts worth over $4.2
billion dollars, but only had a full and open competition on
approximately 46 percent of their contract awards.
HUD awarded more than $500,000 in no-bid contracts to the
executive director of the Virgin Islands PHA to improve that
PHA's operations.
On February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a $1.8 billion, 5-
year, fixed-price incentive contract to operate 58 flight
service stations in the continental United States, Puerto Rico,
and Hawaii. However, the contract has been plagued with
technical and operational problems with the program, which
include system outages, computer glitches, lost flight plans,
excessive hold times, dropped calls, and poor quality service.
The Committee believes that the extensive use of
noncompetitive contracts increases the potential for waste,
fraud, and abuse of federal dollars. Each of the above examples
reaffirms the importance of sound internal controls and fraud
deterrence measures in federal contracting. The Committee urges
both the Department of Transportation and HUD to improve its
contract policies to better protect taxpayer dollars. The
Committee intends to carefully monitor the contracting
practices of the agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction.
Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
The Committee is greatly concerned about the status of the
Highway Trust Fund. Both the Treasury Department and the
Congressional Budget Office are projecting that the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will have a negative
cash balance by the end of fiscal year 2009. The Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund faces a similar fate,
however, at a slightly slower pace. The Mass Transit Account is
expected to reach a negative balance by fiscal year 2011. The
Committee was disappointed that, despite the precarious
financial state of the Highway Trust Fund, the budget request
did not include any serious proposals to address the looming
shortfall.
It is well documented that our nation's transportation
infrastructure is aging and, as noted above, the investment
needs of our nation's highway and transit systems are
significant. Unfortunately, in each of the last six years
(2001-2006), expenditures have exceeded receipts into the
Highway Trust Fund. The highway guarantees were based upon the
principle that the highway program would be funded solely from
a dedicated revenue source financed by user fees. However, that
funding source was overcommitted by the authorizing legislation
and the principles behind the guarantees have been undermined.
Without additional revenues for transportation investment,
the nation will be unable to reduce congestion, maintain aging
bridges and highways, or expand capacity. In short, the looming
crisis in the HTF will hinder the nation's ability to meet the
transportation challenges outlined above. The Committee
believes that there will be sufficient resources in the HTF to
meet the guaranteed highway and transit funding levels required
by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in fiscal year
2008. However, the Committee will continue to carefully monitor
the balances in the HTF to determine whether the guaranteed
funding levels are sustainable.
In addition, the Committee understands that SAFETEA-LU
established two commissions to examine the investment needs and
revenue options for our nation's surface transportation system.
The Committee anxiously awaits the recommendations of these
commissions and expects the authorizing committees of
jurisdiction to take prompt action to restore the solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund to ensure that much needed
transportation investments can continue to occur in the years
ahead.
The Effect of Guaranteed Spending
Nearly a decade ago, in 1998, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement
Act and created, over the objections of the Appropriations and
Budget Committees, two new additional spending categories or
`firewalls', the highway category and the mass transit
category. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
extended the highway and mass transit firewalls through fiscal
year 2009. Similar treatment was provided for certain aviation
programs with the passage of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-2l) and
were later extended in the Vision-l00 Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act. As the Committee noted during
deliberations on these bills, the Acts fundamentally
established mandatory spending programs within the
discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility
to fund other equally important programs within the Committee's
jurisdiction not protected by funding guarantees and to address
emerging priorities. This year, with a more focused
jurisdiction, the funding for critical housing programs for
low-income families must compete for scarce federal resources
with transportation programs that enjoy a funding guarantee. In
addition, funding guarantees skew transportation priorities
inappropriately by providing increases to highway, transit, and
airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the
Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration and Amtrak to scramble for the remaining
resources. As in past years, the Committee has done all in its
power, considering this environment, to produce a balanced bill
providing adequately for all modes of transportation as well as
all non-transportation programs under the jurisdiction of this
bill.
Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget justifications
and supporting documents, the basis of this appropriations Act.
The Committee directs the departments, agencies,
corporations and offices funded within this bill, to notify the
Committee prior to increasing any program, activity, object
classification or element in excess of $5,000,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less. Likewise, the Committee directs the
same entities noted above to not decrease any program,
activity, object classification or element by $5,000,000 or 10
percent, whichever is less. Additionally, the Committee expects
to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which
involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions
would have the effect of significantly changing an agency's
funding requirements in future years, or if programs or
projects specifically cited in the Committee's reports are
affected by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be
approved by the Committee regardless of the amount proposed to
be moved. Furthermore, the Committee must be consulted
regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities
prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations.
The Committee also directs that the Department of
Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit operating plans, signed by the
respective secretary for the Committee's review within 60 days
of the bill's enactment.
Relationship With Budget Offices
Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction
between the Committee and these entities must normally be
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive,
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
2007 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
2008 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end
of this report.
Committee Hearings
In addition to the hearings noted above, the Committee also
conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects
provided for in this bill. Pursuant to House rules, each of
these hearings was open to the public. The Committee received
testimony from cabinet officers, agency heads, inspectors
general, and other officials of the executive branch in areas
under the bill's jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee has
considered written material submitted for the hearing record by
Members of Congress, private citizens, local government
entities, and private organizations. The bill recommendations
for fiscal year 2008 have been developed after careful
consideration of all the information available to the
Committee.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2008, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms `program, project, and
activity' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory
statements of the committee of conference. This definition
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational)
authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants
within the Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment within the
Federal Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to
each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports,
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the
committee of conference.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $84,553,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 96,197,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 90,678,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +6,125,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -5,519,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill provides $90,678,000 for the salaries and expenses
of the various offices comprising the office of the secretary.
The Committee's recommendation includes individual funding for
all of the offices within the office of the secretary, as has
been done in past years, rather than consolidating them as
proposed in the budget request. The Committee notes that the
fiscal year 2008 budget requested a 14 percent increase above
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level for the salaries and
expenses of the office of the secretary. The Committee
understands that as of March 31, 2007, there were as many as
120 vacancies throughout the various secretarial offices. Given
these vacancies and other budgetary constraints, the Committee
recommendation includes a more modest increase in each of the
offices. However, the Committee will continue to closely
monitor the Department's progress in filling staff vacancies to
determine whether additional resources will be needed. The
following table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted level to
the fiscal year 2008 budget estimate and the Committee's
recommendation by office:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House
2007 enacted 2008 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary............................ $2,197,000 $2,314,000 $2,305,000
Office of the deputy secretary............................... 697,000 737,000 724,000
Office of the executive secretariat.......................... 1,441,000 1,535,000 1,498,000
Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy... 11,635,000 12,374,000 12,100,000
Board of contract appeals.................................... 696,000 -- --
Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization..... 1,264,000 1,335,000 1,314,000
Office of the chief information officer...................... 11,801,000 12,587,000 12,273,000
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs... 2,291,000 2,384,000 2,382,000
Office of the general counsel................................ 15,148,000 16,219,000 15,753,000
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs.... 8,465,000 10,417,000 8,903,000
Office of the assistant secretary for administration......... 21,880,000 26,008,000 23,568,000
Office of public affairs..................................... 1,908,000 1,988,000 1,984,000
Office of intelligence and security.......................... 2,027,000 2,737,000 2,737,000
Office of emergency transportation........................... 3,103,000 5,562,000 5,137,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total \1\.............................................. 84,553,000 96,197,000 90,678,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers don't add due to rounding.
Immediate office of the secretary.--The Immediate Office of
the Secretary has the primary responsibility to provide overall
planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,305,000 for
expenses of the immediate office of the secretary, which
represents an increase of $108,000 above the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $9,000 below the level assumed in the budget
request.
Immediate office of the deputy secretary.--The Immediate
Office of the Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility
to assist the Secretary in the overall planning, direction and
control of the departmental affairs. The Deputy Secretary
serves as the chief operating officer of the day to day
operations of the Department of Transportation. The Committee
recommends $724,000 for expenses of the immediate office of the
deputy secretary, which is an increase of $27,000 above the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $13,000 below the budget
request.
Executive secretariat.--The Executive Secretariat assists
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their
management functions and responsibilities by controlling and
coordinating internal and external written materials. The
Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,498,000 for
expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $57,000 more
than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $37,000 below the
level assumed in the budget request.
Office of the under secretary of transportation for
policy.--The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy serves as the Department's chief policy officer
responsible for international standards development and
harmonization; aviation and other transportation-related trade
negotiations; coordination and development of departmental
policy and legislative initiatives; the performance of policy
and economic analysis; and the execution of the essential air
service program. The Committee provides a total of $12,100,000
for the office of the under secretary of transportation for
policy which represents an increase of $465,000 above the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and a reduction of $274,000
below the requested level. The Committee denies the budget
request to move two FTEs from the Office of Intelligence and
Security into the policy office.
Deny transfer of two FTEs............................... -$250,000
Office of small and disadvantaged business utilization.--
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is
responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business
participation in the department's procurement and grants
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,314,000 for the office of small and disadvantaged business
utilization, which represents an increase of $50,000 above the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $21,000 below the level
requested in the budget request.
Office of the chief information officer.--The Office of the
Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as the principal advisor
to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and
information systems management. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $12,273,000 for the office of the chief
information officer, which is an increase of $472,000 above the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $314,000 below the level
assumed in the budget request.
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental
affairs.--The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all
Congressional, intergovernmental, and consumer activities of
the department. The Committee recommendation includes
$2,382,000 for the office of the assistant secretary for
governmental affairs, which represents an increase of $91,000
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $2,000 below the
budget request.
In addition, the bill continues a provision (sec. 187) that
requires the department to notify the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than three business days
before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by
the department or its modal administrations from: (1) any
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
(3) any program of the Federal Transit Administration program
other than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization
programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the
official announcement of the grant is to be made and no such
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Office of the general counsel.--The Office of the General
Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary
and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief
counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
Committee recommends $15,753,000 for the office of general
counsel, which represents an increase of $605,000 from the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and $466,000 less than the
budget request.
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and
programs.--The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary,
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $8,903,000 for the office of the
assistant secretary for budget and programs, which represents
an increase of $438,000 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level
and $1,514,000 below the level requested in the budget.
Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and automatic
data processing operations of the department. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $23,568,000 for expenses of the
office of the assistant secretary for administration, which
represents an increase of $1,688,000 from the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $2,440,000 below the level assumed in the
budget request.
Office of public affairs.--The Office of Public Affairs is
responsible for news releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing
materials, publications, and audio-visual materials of the
department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,984,000 for expenses of the office of public affairs, which
represents an increase of $76,000 above the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $4,000 below the level assumed in the budget
request.
Office of intelligence and security.--The Office of
Intelligence and Security serves as the Department's primary
point of contact with the Homeland Security Counsel and the
Department of Homeland Security. The office provides
intelligence and security oversight of the operating
administrations to increase the safety and security of the
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary with current intelligence and security information,
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats
to transportation interests. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $2,737,000 for expenses of the office of
intelligence and security, which is an increase of $710,000
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same level
assumed in the budget request. The Committee denies the
transfer to two FTEs to the policy office and reduces the
requested increase for contract services by a similar amount.
Deny transfer of two FTEs to the Policy Office.......... +$250,000
Reduce contract services................................ -250,000
Office of emergency transportation.--The Office of
Emergency Transportation coordinates the Department's
participation in National and Regional exercises; conducts
training for emergency personnel; administers the Continuity of
Government and Continuity of Operations programs; and
coordinates DOT's role in contingency planning and response
activities. In light of the hurricane disasters in 2005, the
Department of Transportation has been charged with the expanded
responsibility of coordinating mass evacuations when disasters
overcome the capabilities of state and local governments. Given
these new responsibilities, the Inspector General has noted
that the Department must ensure that roles and responsibilities
are carefully defined and that there is effective communication
and coordination with other Federal agencies. The Committee
recommendation includes $5,137,000 for the office of emergency
response, which is $2,034,000 above the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $425,000 below the budget request. Within the
amounts provided, the Committee includes $305,000 for two
additional FTEs for the manager and assistant manager positions
for the DOT Emergency Transportation Center. The Committee
provides half-year funding for three additional FTEs to assist
with emergency preparedness planning, training and response.
The Committee denies the request for $150,000 for additional
contract and consultant support and encourages the office to
leverage the expertise available in the modal administrations.
Reduce funding for emergency transportation staff....... -$275,000
Reduce contract and consultant services................. -150,000
Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee directs
the department to include the same level of detail that was
provided in the congressional justifications presented in
fiscal year 2003. Some of the budget documents submitted for
fiscal year 2008 did not adhere to that standard. Further, the
department is directed to include in the budget justification
funding levels for the prior year, current year, and budget
year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program
elements. Each budget submitted by the department must also
include detailed justification for the incremental funding
increases and additional FTEs being requested above the enacted
level, by program, activity, or program element.
OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its
justification of changes from the current year to the request.
To ensure that each adjustment is identified, the Committee
directs OST in future congressional justifications to include
detailed information in tabular format which identifies
specific changes in funding from the current year to the budget
year for each office, including each office within the office
of the secretary.
Operating plan.--The Committee directs the department to
submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2008, signed by the
secretary for review by the Committees on Appropriations of
both the House and Senate within 60 days of the bill's
enactment. The operating plan should include funding levels for
the various offices, programs and initiatives detailed down to
the object class or program element covered in the budget
justification and supporting documents or referenced in the
House and Senate appropriations reports, and the statement of
the managers.
Department of defense schools.--The Committee understands
that there may be differing views within the Department
regarding payments to the Department of Defense for the
education of dependent children of those Federal Aviation
Administration employees in Puerto Rico and Guam if they meet
the eligibility requirements of Section 2164(c) of title 10,
United States Code. The Committee encourages the Secretary as
chief executive of the Department to render a final decision
regarding these payments that is consistent with the law and is
in the best interest of the affected children.
General provisions.--The Committee reiterates its direction
to the Department to provide a detailed explanation for each
and every general provision requested in the budget. The
Committee expects each of the modal administrations to provide
a similar justification for each requested general provision.
Bill language.--The bill continues language that permits up
to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the office of the
secretary for salaries and expenses.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $8,528,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 9,140,900
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,140,900
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +612,900
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the
secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity
precepts in all of the department's official actions and
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of
Transportation employees.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $9,140,900 for the office of civil
rights, which represents a $612,900 increase above the fiscal
year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $14,893,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 9,115,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,515,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -6,378,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -600,000
This appropriation finances those research activities and
studies concerned with the planning, analysis, and information
development needed to support the secretary's responsibilities
in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit
research organizations, and private firms.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,515,000 for
transportation planning, research and development, a decrease
of $6,378,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
$600,000 below the budget request.
The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the
following projects:
Advanced freight locomotive safety and monitoring $1,000,000
system, MA...........................................
Ballast water research, UW-Superior, WI............... 1,000,000
Center for commercial deployment of transportation 250,000
technologies, CA.....................................
Commercial vehicle rollover prevention technology 1,000,000
demonstration, MI....................................
Great lakes maritime research institute, WI........... 1,000,000
National center for manufacturing sciences (NCMS), MI. 750,000
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Limitation, fiscal year 2007.......................... ($118,014,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\.................. - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... (128,094,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2007...................... (+10,080,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. (+128,094,000)\1\ Proposed without limitation.
The working capital fund (WCF) was created to provide
common administrative services to the various modes and outside
entities that desire those services for economy and efficiency.
The fund is financed through negotiated agreements with the
department's operating administrations and other governmental
elements requiring the WCF's capabilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on
the working capital fund. The budget request proposed a
limitless program level for the fund in fiscal year 2008. The
Committee's recommendation is appropriate considering the
funding levels of the operations and administrative accounts.
Modal usage of working capital fund.--Consistent with past
practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal
year 2009 congressional justifications for each of the modal
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in WCF
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the
modes rather than anticipated by WCF managers.
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed
loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007......... $893,000 ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008........ 891,000 (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill................. 893,000 (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..... - - - (- - -)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.... +2,000 (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minority business resource center of the office of
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $893,000 for the minority business
resourse center which is the same as the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $2,000 above the budget request. The
Committee provides $370,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the
loans and $523,000 for the program's administrative expenses.
In addition, the Committee recommends a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the same as the budget request
and the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $2,970,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 2,970,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,970,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects
that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $2,970,000 for this program, equal
to both the fiscal year 2007 funding level and the budget
request.
PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $59,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 60,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +60,000,000
The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was originally
created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary
measure to continue air service to communities that had
received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation.
The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers
serving small communities that meet certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from,
nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight
fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees
for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the
first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to
finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees,
the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds
available to the agency.
The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes to fund the EAS
program at a total of $50,000,000, solely from new overflight
fee collections credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
and changes the program to require communities share in the
cost of air service. In addition, the budget proposes bill
language which would result in the elimination of air service
to nearly a third of the communities that currently receive
service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total program level of EAS in
fiscal year 2008 of $110,000,000, the same level provided in
fiscal year 2007. This funding consists of an appropriation of
$60,000,000 and $50,000,000 to be derived from overflight fee
collections. Based on current estimates from the Department of
Transportation, the Committee believes that this funding level
is sufficient to maintain air service to all communities
currently served by the Essential Air Service program. However,
in the event that there is a shortfall, the bill continues
language allowing the Secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000
to the EAS program from the small community air service
development program if necessary.
The bill does not include the legislative reforms to the
essential air service program as proposed in the budget.
However, the Committee continues language (sec. 101) to ensure
prompt availability of funds for obligation to air carriers
providing service under the EAS program. The Committee has also
continued language that allows the secretary to take into
consideration the subsidy requirements of carriers when
selecting between carriers competing to provide service to a
community.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 104) prohibiting the
use of funds to implement an essential air service pilot
program that requires local cost-share participation.
COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS
(RESCISSION)
Rescission, fiscal year 2007.......................... -$50,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... -22,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -22,000,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 2007...................... +28,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
(Public Law 107-42) provided $5,000,000,000 to compensate air
carriers for direct losses incurred during the federal ground
stop of civil aviation after the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, and for incremental losses incurred between September
11 and December 31, 2001. To date, of the $5,000,000,000
appropriated, $4,603,452,933 of direct compensation payments
have been made and a total of $375,000,000 has been rescinded
by Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee includes language that rescinds the remaining
$22,000,000 from the compensation for air carriers, consistent
with the budget request. The Committee understands that there
is one remaining claim that is currently in administrative
processing. Although the Committee has been informed that this
claim is expected to be resolved in 2007, the Committee
requests that the Secretary keep the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations informed as to the status of this
final claim.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing
the Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums
from ``office of the secretary, salaries and expenses'' to
``minority business outreach''.
Section 102. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal
reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Section 103. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds to implement an essential air
service local cost share participation program.
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce;
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
After further administrative reorganizations, Congress
streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of
two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the
Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation
began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation
Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and became one of several modal administrations within the
department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out
with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and
ceased to exist at the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in
1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and decreased
in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security
activities to the new Transportation Security Administration.
Aviation trends and challenges.--The aviation industry has
emerged as one of the largest industries in the world, as air
travel has facilitated economic growth, world trade,
international investment and tourism. Both commercial aviation
and cargo service have experienced significant growth. In the
ten year period from 1995 to 2006, the number of passengers
grew from 545 million per year to 740 million. This number is
expected to grow to 1 billion passengers by 2015. In addition,
the air freight industry has expanded from 23 billion tons in
1995 to 40 billion tons in 2006, a 74 percent boost in total
goods transported due in part to the large rise in express
delivery services. In 2002, the value of the goods transported
via commercial aviation surpassed $8,483 billion testifying to
the industry's value to international and domestic business.
Based on the demands of a growing, global economy which relies
on quality goods delivered on a ``just-in-time'' basis, the
tonnage and value of goods transported via aviation means are
expected to increase.
However, the aviation industry is continuing to change and
FAA is facing some serious challenges. The increase in traffic
levels has resulted in congestion and delays. Operational
performance of the National Airspace System (NAS) slipped
slightly in 2006 with one in four flights arriving late. This
is the worst level since 2000 when aviation gridlock dominated
the aviation agenda. The Committee notes that the average
length of flight delays has increased from 51 minutes in 2000
to 53 minutes in 2006. Increased travel has also produced more
emissions and noise problems. While technological advances in
aircraft design have resulted in quieter planes with lower
emissions, civilian aviation reportedly contributes
approximately 3.5 percent of the total emissions that
negatively impact air quality. Advances in equipment and
capital programs are expected to reduce congestion and
emissions but more work in these areas is necessary to cope
with the increasing demand for aviation transportation.
Although no legacy airlines are currently in bankruptcy,
they continue to struggle financially. Over the last several
years, they have received intense competition from an
increasing number of low-cost carriers. The declining airfares
that benefit consumers have contributed to the financial
difficulties of network carriers. High fuel costs continue to
undermine the financial improvement of network carriers and are
also cutting into the low-cost carriers' bottom lines.
In addition, the nation's fleet mix now runs the gamut from
very light jets to the A-380, which completed its first flights
to the U.S. this year. The complexity in the system is
increasing--the smaller more efficient jets are flying point-
to-point rather than through expensive network hub airports.
These changes have resulted in workload increases for FAA.
These workload increases are occurring just when the FAA is
facing a large wave of controller retirements. FAA has seen an
increase in retirements over projections in 2006 linked to its
imposed work rules, and it must ensure that enough controllers
are hired and trained to replace those that are retiring. In
addition, the workload on safety inspectors and engineers is
increasing as the industry continues to outsource and as the
FAA transitions to the safety management system (SMS).
Since the current air traffic system, which is largely
ground-based infrastructure, is not sufficient to meet the
anticipated demand for air travel or to address the changes in
the industry, FAA is undertaking the development and
implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). The Committee notes that FAA has had a history of
problems managing modernization projects in the past. NextGen
is a complex, multibillion modernization project, and FAA must
establish effective controls and oversight to ensure the FAA
delivers new capabilities on-time and within budget.
If our aviation system does not proactively respond to
these challenges, there will be severe economic and social
consequences. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunities to
improve the industry then congestion, higher consumer prices,
deteriorating air quality and an increased risk to aviation
safety are all foreseeable repercussions. The Committee
strongly urges the FAA to aggressively pursue solutions to
these problems to ensure that the United States remains at the
forefront of aviation safety and efficiency.
FAA funding proposal.--The Federal Aviation
Administration's funding and programs expire in October of this
year. In its reauthorization proposal submitted on February 14,
the FAA transforms the aviation financing structure from tax-
based to cost-based. As the foundation of its proposal, the FAA
would impose new user-fees and issue bonds to finance air
traffic control modernization. Bondholders would be repaid with
these user fees.
The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the
impact of user fees and bonding on the oversight of FAA
programs. In the past, the agency's large capital projects
experienced massive cost growth and schedule slippage. A May
2005 IG report stated that 11 major FAA acquisitions
experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion and delays from 2 to 12
years. Although some progress has been made, more needs to be
done. This Committee has ensured that the FAA strengthens its
program management and contractor oversight.
However, user fees and bonding would create a new fiduciary
responsibility between the agency and the bondholder.
Essentially, FAA's allegiance would transfer from the American
taxpayer to the bondholder, and oversight responsibilities of
this Committee also would be substituted by bondholders.
Financial discipline would erode as these programs would exist
outside of the budget process.
The Committee firmly believes that now is not the time to
decrease its oversight role, especially as FAA is developing
and soon will implement NextGen, a multi-billion effort that
will dominate FAA's F&E account. The Committee's oversight of
FAA's capital programs is and will be vitally important to
protect tax dollars and to ensure projects are completed on-
time and within budget.
FAA program structure.--In its fiscal year 2008 budget
request, the FAA proposed to change FAA's program account
structure. The request would create two new accounts, Air
Traffic Organization and Safety and Operations, which would be
composed of a mix of elements from two eliminated accounts,
Operations and Facilities and Equipment. The FAA states that
this structure would align FAA's lines of businesses with its
reauthorization proposal, which includes user fees in fiscal
year 2009.
The Committee notes that FAA's proposed new accounts are
not authorized, and the Senate's Aviation Investment and
Modernization Act of 2007 does not adopt the proposal.
Therefore, the Committee continues funding FAA under the
existing account structure. In addition, the Committee presents
all charts and figures in this format.
Justification of general provisions.--The Committee notes
that FAA has not provided any justification for, nor has it
addressed, the general or administrative provisions it proposes
in the President's budget. The Committee directs FAA to justify
each provision proposed in a section of each subsequent fiscal
year's congressional budget justification.
OPERATIONS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $8,374,217,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\.................. 8,725,783,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,716,606,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +342,389,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -9,177,000\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.
This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
international, medical, engineering and development programs as
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
The operations appropriation includes the following major
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5)
administration of the acquisition, research and development
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,716,606,000 for FAA operations,
an increase of $342,389,000 above the level provided in fiscal
year 2007, and $9,177,000 below the budget request.
A comparison of the fiscal year 2008 budget request to the
Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Committee
Budget activity enacted request \1\ recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic organization............................... $6,739,761,000 $6,964,813,000 $6,958,413,000
Aviation safety........................................ 1,003,410,000 1,056,103,000 1,076,103,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 11,696,000 12,837,000 12,549,000
Financial services..................................... 76,289,000 103,849,000 100,593,000
Human resources........................................ 85,738,000 91,214,000 89,101,000
Region and center operations........................... 275,797,000 290,872,000 286,848,000
Staff offices.......................................... 175,000,000 166,543,000 162,349,000
Information services................................... 36,002,000 39,552,000 38,650,000
Adjustments............................................ ................. ................. -8,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 8,374,217,000 8,725,783,000 8,716,606,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.
TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET
The bill derives $12,572,000,000 of the total appropriation
from the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the
appropriation ($2,399,606,000) will be drawn from the general
fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, 85 percent of the
FAA's costs will be borne by air travelers and industries using
those services. The remaining 15 percent will be borne by the
general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize
FAA services.
STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
According to Administration estimates, fiscal year 2008
will continue the recent trend where necessary outlays for FAA
programs outstrip the revenues from aviation users deposited
into the airport and airway trust fund. The following table
compares trust fund revenue to trust fund outlays for the past
three fiscal years. As the table indicates, under current
estimates the Federal Government is not only spending all the
revenues coming into the trust fund, it is going beyond that,
and spending down the cash balance. The Administration
estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2008, the uncommitted
cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately
$3,134,000,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund revenue \1\................................. $11,194,000,000 $12,131,000,000 $12,623,000,000
Trust fund outlays..................................... 12,148,000,000 12,308,000,000 14,154,000,000
Difference............................................. -954,000,000 -177,000,000 -1,531,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections, and interest on trust fund cash balance.
BASE TRANSFERS
The budget proposes to transfer several activities and
related personnel among offices within the operations
appropriation. The Committee agrees that these transfers will
properly align functions and positions among these offices,
resulting in efficiencies.
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
The bill provides $6,958,413,000 for air traffic services,
a reduction of $6,400,000 from the budget request. These
resources are managed by FAA's air traffic organization. The
recommended level reflects a $211,452,000 increase from the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level, primarily due to mandatory
adjustments for pay raises and inflation for on-board
personnel, including air traffic controllers; costs associated
with hiring and training 1,420 new air traffic controllers; and
national airspace system (NAS) hand-off costs. NAS hand-off
costs are associated with additional training for maintenance,
engineering, telecommunications and other personnel on
facilities and equipment acquisitions as they become
operational. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are
listed and described below:
Amount
Contract tower base program............................. +$3,600,000
NAS handoff............................................. -10,000,000
Contract tower program.--The bill includes $103,000,000, an
increase of $3,600,000 above the budget estimate of
$99,400,000, to continue the contract tower base program. This
will fund the 10 non-towered airports that are expected to
enter the program during fiscal year 2008.
In addition, the bill provides $8,500,000, equal to the
budget estimate, to continue the contract tower cost-sharing
program. The Committee continues to believe this is a valuable
program that provides safety benefits to small communities.
The Committee recognizes that the number of airports
participating in the cost-sharing program fluctuates regularly
because of changes in air traffic activity. In order to prevent
program disruptions and provide more certainty, the Committee
allows FAA to use unsubscribed funds from the contract tower
base-line program to avoid elimination of communities from the
cost-share towers program. However, FAA should only employ this
flexibility with surplus funds in the base line contract tower
program, after all baseline contract tower obligations have
been fulfilled.
National airspace system handoff.--The Committee recommends
a reduction of $10,000,000 below the budget estimate of
$127,873,000 for a total of $117,400,000 in NAS handoff funding
to training on newly deployed F&E systems.
Controller staffing.--The Committee believes that the FAA's
leadership should proactively work to reach a mutual agreement
with its controller workforce. The Committee is extremely
concerned about controller staffing levels both on-board and in
the training and hiring ``pipeline'', as controllers are
crucial to the safety of the flying public. The FAA estimates
that over the next 10 years, 72 percent of its controllers will
become eligible to retire as they reach the mandatory
retirement age of 56. To address the retirement bubble, FAA
states that it plans to hire and train 15,000 new air traffic
controllers over that time-frame. In December 2004, it
submitted to Congress its first air traffic controller
workforce plan outlining its hiring plan for the next 10 years.
In March 2007, the agency provided the second update to its
air traffic controller workforce plan. As with the prior
update, it refined the methodology, incorporated new estimates
of future traffic and retirement projections, and included
recent productivity gains. In addition, it includes facility-
specific controller staffing ranges, consistent with the
Inspector General's recommendation, which the FAA states is
based on actual and forecasted traffic demands. Although the
Committee agrees that facility-specific levels are important to
ensure an adequate number of controllers are in each facility,
it is concerned that the lower level of the staffing ranges
represent a significant reduction in some facilities as
compared to facility staffing agreements reached with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association in 1998.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that retirements
have increased over projections. It is clear that the sudden
escalation in retirements is directly related to the collapse
of labor negotiations in May 2006. The FAA projected 467
retirements for fiscal year 2006, and actual retirements were
tracking close to projections until May when the FAA declared
an impasse. By the end of the fiscal year, a total of 116
additional air traffic controllers retired over projections.
FAA responded by increasing new hires in fiscal year 2007 (by
250) and raising retirement projections for the future (by 57
in 2007). FAA states that it is primarily focused on reaching
its end of year staffing target each year and adjusts new
hiring goals to meet end of year targets.
However, the increased retirements translate into a less
experienced workforce. This less experienced workforce is
responsible for providing on-the-job training for the new
Academy graduates. This coupled with the recent reduction in
training time from 3-5 years to 2-3 years, could result in
negative safety implications.
Consistent with the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the
Committee includes $15,899,000 to support salaries, benefits,
training and ancillary support costs associated with 1,420 new
controllers. The agency estimates that the new hires will be
offset by expected losses of 1,276 controllers, resulting in a
net increase of 144. The Committee will continue to closely
monitor the various aspects of the controller issue, including
retirements and training, to ensure that there are enough
trained controllers to replace those that are retiring.
Further, the Committee will continue to monitor the safety of
the system by reviewing data, including runway incursion and
operational error statistics.
Controller diversity plan.--The Committee notes that the
current controller workforce does not reflect the rich
diversity of this nation. Given that 72 percent of the more
than 14,000 controllers will retire over the next 10 years, now
is the opportune time for FAA to reach-out to minorities and
females to expand their numbers in the controller ranks.
The Committee directs the FAA to develop a plan that will
attract a controller workforce that more closely resembles this
nation. The plan should include new methods to increase lower
than anticipated participation rates and include a current
controller workforce baseline with metrics to measure the
plan's effectiveness. The Committee requires the FAA to provide
the controller diversity plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by January 1, 2008, and to provide
updates to the Committee annually thereafter on new activities
undertaken on the plan's effectiveness.
Automated external defibrillators.--The Committee believes
that automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can serve as a
critical lifesaving device for FAA employees that experience
cardiac arrest. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to
study the issue of installing AEDs in its facilities and
encourages the FAA to develop a policy on AEDs. The study
should include the cost of an AED; other costs, such as
installation, training, and maintenance; a review of OSHA and
any other applicable guidelines or requirements; a review of
liability risks; an accounting of FAA facilities that currently
have defibrillators; and a review of other federal agencies'
policies on providing AEDs. The Committee directs FAA to
provide the study to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriation within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
Flight service stations.--The Committee is troubled by the
technical and operational problems associated with the flight
service station consolidation and modernization. These problems
include system outages, lost flight plans, excessive hold
times, dropped calls, and poor quality service with specialists
incapable of briefing on important weather and safety
information. The Committee remains concerned the operational
needs of the users are not being met thus affecting safety.
Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to develop and
implement management controls to ensure that the contractor has
sufficient specialists certified in a particular service area
to meet user need, consistent with the recommendation included
in the Inspector General's May 2007 report. The FAA shall
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no
later than December 31, 2007, on the status of these controls.
AVIATION SAFETY
The bill provides $1,076,103,000 for aviation safety, an
increase of $20,000,000 above the budget request. Recommended
adjustments to the budget are described below.
Annualize on-board safety inspectors and engineers...... +$16,000,000
Hire additional critical safety staff................... +4,000,000
Critical safety staff.--The Committee has been concerned
for some time about the level of critical safety personnel. To
address delinquencies in the office of flight standard and
aircraft certification, the 2006 Act provided an additional
$12,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 budget request for 238
new safety personnel, of which $8,000,000 was for aviation
flight standards (AFS) inspectors, and $4,000,000 for aircraft
certification safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and
scientists. After accounting for the fiscal year 2006 across
the board cut and mandatory pay raise, only 87 new safety
staff, 55 for AFS and 32 for AIR, could be hired. The Committee
took care to ensure that the entire 238 positions originally
envisioned could be hired in fiscal year 2007, and provided
funding for 43 AFS positions and 14 AIR positions in House
Joint Resolution 20.
Although the fiscal year 2008 budget request provides
increases to several critical safety staff offices, including
84 in AFS and 28 in AIR, it does not include the necessary
funding to annualize the 57 AIR and AFS staff hired in fiscal
year 2007. Therefore the committee provides $16,000,000 for
these purposes, in addition to the requested funding level.
Further, the Committee provides another $4,000,000 to hire
critical safety staff. The Committee expects that these funds
will allow FAA to hire up to 60 AVS personnel. Within this
$4,000,000, the Committee provides $2,000,000 for AVS
inspectors, $750,000 for AIR, $250,000 for aviation medicine,
$750,000 for Air Traffic Safety Oversight, and $250,000 for
quantity, integration, and executive services.
Funds provided for the AVS offices are designated
congressional items of interest. The Committee prohibits the
reprogramming of funds between the offices, or for any other
purpose within or outside of the aviation safety office,
including the hiring of other types of personnel within
aviation safety.
The Committee directs the Secretary to provide annual
reports beginning March 1, 2008 regarding the use of the funds
provided, including, but not limited to the total full-time
equivalent staff years in the offices of aircraft certification
and flight standards, total employees, vacancies, and positions
under active recruitment to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
AVS safety workforce plan.--The FAA delivered its first
aviation safety workforce plan to Congress on May 10, 2007. The
purpose of the plan was to ensure that the FAA sustains
sufficient oversight of a dynamic and growing industry given
its highly-trained and technically-skilled workforce with a
historic and expected annual attrition rate of 5 to 7 percent.
The plan assumes an overall staffing growth of .05 to 2 percent
per year over attrition in AVS overall. It also addresses the
need to attract the right mix of new skills as FAA transitions
the current AVS workforce to a safety management system
culture. However, the plan does not indicate the number of
inspectors required to meet its mission, nor does it provide
information on additional training needs for on-board staff. To
accomplish the former, the FAA must produce a staffing model,
and the Committee understands the FAA currently is working with
the National Academy of Sciences to develop such model.
In addition the report states FAA will expand the use of
designees. The Committee notes that the IG has had serious
safety concerns associated with the use of designees. The
Committee shares the IG's concerns regarding any expansion of
the use of designees for critical safety oversight activities.
The Committee directs FAA to provide more detail on overall
staffing needs, its expected use of designees and how that will
impact safety, as well as staffing requirements at its office
and field locations. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to
submit updates to this plan annually.
AVS diversity.--The Committee is interested in attracting a
diverse safety workforce to ensure that the AVS workforce more
closely resembles this Nation. Therefore, the Committee directs
the FAA to submit the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriation an AVS diversity plan. The plan should include
new methods to increase lower than anticipated participation
rates and include a current AVS workforce baseline with metrics
to measure the plan's effectiveness. The Committee requires the
FAA to provide the AVS diversity plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriation by January 1, 2008, and to provide
updates to the Committee annually thereafter on new activities
undertaken and on the plan's effectiveness.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
Fiscal year 2007 related reduction...................... -$288,000
The Committee recommends $12,549,000 for the office of
commercial space transportation, a reduction of $288,000 from
the budget request for funding requests associated with fiscal
year 2007. This funding level assumes four new FTEs for space
launch safety. The commercial space launch industry is
expanding to include the transportation of humans as well as
satellites and other payloads into space and the use of inland
as well as coastal launch sites. As a result, FAA's workload
and safety oversight responsibilities will continue to grow.
GAO noted in its October 2006 report that the FAA needs
sufficient expertise to continue to provide timely license
approvals and monitoring and to address the serious safety
implications of the industry's expansion for people both on the
ground and in the launch vehicles.
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Fiscal year 2007 related reduction...................... -$1,256,000
Delphi reduction........................................ -2,000,000
The Committee recommends $100,593,000 for the office of
financial services, a reduction of $3,256,000 from the budget
request. The Committee provides $14,483,000 for Delphi
maintenance and operation costs, FAA's portion of the complex,
department-wide, financial management system. In addition, the
Committee provides a total of $984,000 to support 5 new
positions for expanded contract oversight for the program. The
Committee reduces funding by $1,256,000 for funds requested
associated with the fiscal year 2007 request. Within the funds
provided, the Committee provides 8 FTEs to establish new
functions and controls to address the material weakness and
qualified opinion it received on its fiscal year 2006 financial
statements and other problems identified in prior years. This
will allow the FAA to effectively manage the capitalization of
assets (representing a $14 billion portfolio) identified by
both the IG and the GAO as a longstanding problem. The funding
level also includes $7,000,000 in base transfers associated
with penalty mail.
HUMAN RESOURCES
Fiscal year 2007 related reduction...................... -$2,113,000
The Committee recommends $89,101,000, a reduction of
$2,113,000 from the budget request for funding associated with
the fiscal year 2007 request.
REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS
Fiscal year 2007 related reduction...................... -$4,024,000
The Committee recommends $286,848,000 for the region and
center operations, a reduction of $4,024,000 from the request.
Increases from fiscal year 2007 include increases associated
with facilities management, and $7,827,000 associated with the
Washington flight program hanger 6 base transfer from ATO.
STAFF OFFICES
Fiscal year 2007 related reduction...................... -$5,049,000
The Committee provides $200,999,000 for staff offices,
including information service, a reduction of $5,049,000 below
the budget request. The reduction is associated with funding
requested for fiscal year 2007. Within the total, information
services is provided $38,650,000.
ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS
Unfilled executive positions.--The recommendation includes
a reduction of $8,000,000 in agency-wide personnel compensation
and benefits reflecting the unfilled roster of 15 executive
positions in the agency, including 6 which were not under
active recruitment. Past hearing records indicate that, at any
given time, the agency is likely to have between 10 and 20
unfilled executive positions. For an agency with 159 executive
positions, this level of openings may not be problematic.
However, it does indicate excess costs are being budgeted for
positions that are not likely to be filled in the entirety of
the fiscal year.
BILL LANGUAGE
Second career training program.--Once again this year, the
bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second
career training program. This prohibition has been in annual
appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the
President's budget request.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * *
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v.
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for
fiscal years 1995 through 2007.
Aviation user fees.--The bill includes a limitation carried
for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize
or implement any new unauthorized user fees.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C)
activities through the working capital fund (WCF). Public Law
106-181 authorized the transfer of these activities from the
Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee
supported. The Committee believes this work should continue to
be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to
the WCF.
Store gift cards and gift certificates.--The bill maintains
the limitation in effect since fiscal year 2004 prohibiting FAA
from using funds to purchase store gift cards or gift
certificates through a government-issued credit card. This
provision responds to abuses documented by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Credits.--Funds received from specified public, private,
and foreign sources for expenses incurred may be credited to
the appropriation.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $2,516,920,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\.................. 2,462,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,515,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -1,920,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +53,000,000\1\ Reflects requested funding in existing account structure.
The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major
capital investments required by other agency programs,
experimental research and development facilities, and other
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace
system.
Next generation air transportation system (NextGen).--The
Committee is fully supportive of development and transition to
NextGen and agrees that it is critical to accommodate the
projected increases in air travel and air freight. In 2006
there were 740 passengers and the FAA forecasts that airlines
will carry more than 1 billion passengers by 2015. DOT predicts
a tripling of passengers, cargo, and operations by 2025.
Congress established the joint planning and development
office (JPDO) to manage work related to the NextGen, which will
be a highly complex, expensive, high-risk endeavor. The FAA
estimates that $4,600,000,000 will be required for the NextGen
initiative over the next five years, and much more is required
in the out-years. In its February 2007 report, the IG
identified a number of actions that are needed to reduce risk
with NextGen.
The report stressed that FAA needs to keep its major
acquisitions on track. A May 2005 IG report stated that 11
major FAA acquisitions experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion
and experienced schedule slips from 2 to 12 years. Although FAA
has made some progress, it needs to continue strong oversight
of these programs, particularly since many serve as platforms
for NextGen.
In addition, the JPDO must ensure that it is a multi-agency
effort. It must coordinate diverse agency research efforts
underway at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and Department
of Homeland Security. The JPDO continues to develop an
enterprise architecture and an integrated budget document, and
has been working on memorandum of understandings with
participating agencies. However, questions remain over which
entities will fund and conduct some of the necessary research
and development (R&D) projects. The IG recommends that the JPDO
develop an R&D plan to guide agency research efforts over the
next several years.
In addition, the IG recommends that FAA shift from NextGen
planning to implementation. FAA needs to develop realistic cost
estimates for development, including adjustments to existing
project and costs for new initiatives; quantify expected
benefits; develop a strategy for technology transfer; and
conduct sufficient human factors research to support NextGen
changes.
The Committee directs FAA to continue working to mitigate
the risks involved in the development of NextGen to ensure that
the NAS can meet expected traffic demands safely and
efficiently. Further, FAA shall keep the Committee fully
appraised of any circumstance which may impact the cost or
schedule of the NextGen deployment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,515,000,000
for this program, a decrease of $1,920,000 below the level
provided for fiscal year 2007 and $53,000,000 above the budget
estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount
recommended, $2,055,027,000 is available for obligation until
September 30, 2010, and $459,973,000 (the amount for personnel
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2008.
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past
appropriations Acts.
Program increases for critical safety programs.--The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included the
``reduction of runway incursions'' as one of its top
priorities. In fact, the issue has been on NTSB's ``most wanted
transportation improvement'' list since the list began in 1990.
Although the FAA has made significant progress in reducing
these incidents, the risks remain serious. Therefore, the
Committee continues to target funding at specific technologies
that will help prevent runway incursions now and in the future
as well as other safety programs.
ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Runway Incursion Reduction Programs (RIRP).--The Committee
provides $8,000,000 for the RIRP, an increase of $2,000,000
over the budget request to accelerate the development of safety
technologies that mitigate factors and reduce the likelihood of
runway incursions. This funding level will accelerate
development and testing of runway intersection lights logic for
intersecting runways; development of audible runway conflict
alerts to the cockpit, especially important in low visibility
conditions; and development of ground-based runway safety
alerting visual aids for small and medium airports where ASDE-X
technology is not available.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).--The
ADSB program is an important foundation for the next generation
air traffic control system. It provides an advanced
surveillance technology which will result in greater positional
accuracy and better utilization of airspace. In addition, it
will reduce congestion, increase capacity, increase safety and
provide greater predictability in departure and arrival times.
The Committee provides $90,650,000, $5,000,000 above the
request of $85,650,000 to accelerate ADSB. With the additional
funds, the Committee directs the FAA to examine frequency
congestion issues associated with the ADSB signal (expected to
be used by large commercial aircraft) and accelerate the effort
to determine how existing aircraft separation standards (based
on radar technology) can be safely reduced. Resolution of these
issues is essential for realizing the full benefits of this
promising technology.
MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Advanced technology and oceanic procedures (ATOP).--The
Committee understands that ATOP service problems are resulting
in the loss of data-link communication with aircraft and
aircraft position jumps. Not only does this pose a serious
safety issue, but also these problems directly limit the
potential capacity and productivity benefits from the new
automation system. Further, the Committee is concerned that
ATOP cannot serve as a platform for NextGen if the service is
not corrected. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to
implement a solution that corrects the problems.
ENROUTE PROGRAMS
Airport surface detection system--model X (ASDE-X).--The
Committee provides $45,600,000 for ASDE-X, for an increase of
$7,700,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will
enable FAA to expedite site implementation and commission ASDE-
X systems earlier than currently planned. Deploying ASDE-X
earlier at these sites will make it possible to realize safety
and efficiency benefits sooner, including better controller
situational awareness in all weather conditions and reduced
risk of category A and B runway incursions.
Runway status lights.--The Committee provides $20,000,000
for runway status lights (RWSL), an increase of $14,700,000
over the budget request. Implementation of RWSL will reduce the
likelihood of runway accidents, particularly during take-off
and landing, when most accidents take place. This program will
help establish an international standard for this type of
safety technology and help maintain FAA's international
leadership. Further, this program responds to continued calls
from both the operational community and the NTSB to deploy
technology that provides direct warning to pilots.
Integrated control and monitoring system.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for the continued procurement and
installation, including site preparation, of the integrated
control and monitoring system (ICMS) and expects the DOT to
install systems at airports with the highest need.
TERMINAL PROGRAMS
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The
Committee provides a total of $155,100,000 for this program, an
increase of $4,500,000 over the budget request.
FY 2008 budget
Project estimate RecommendationAbilene, TX....................... $2,200,000 $2,200,000
Palm Springs, CA.................. 500,000 1,500,000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL................ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Oakland, CA....................... 4,600,000 4,600,000
Orlando, FL....................... 7,000,000 7,000,000
Toledo, OH........................ 1,450,000 1,450,000
Traverse City, MI................. 1,150,000 1,150,000
Kalamozoo, MI..................... 22,550,000 22,550,000
West Palm Beach, FL............... 7,590,000 7,590,000
Houston, TX....................... 29,072,000 29,072,000
Boise, ID......................... 9,074,000 9,074,000
Jeffco, CO........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000
Reno, NV.......................... 15,223,000 15,223,000
Gulfport, MS...................... 7,497,000 7,497,000
LaGuardia, NY..................... 9,000,000 9,000,000
Pensacola, FL..................... 4,180,000 4,180,000
Dayton, OH........................ 2,300,000 2,300,000
Memphis, TN....................... 4,760,000 4,760,000
Missoula, MT...................... 754,000 754,000
Medford, OR....................... 1,100,000 1,100,000
San Francisco, CA, replacement.... - - - 1,500,000
Facility power distribution links.--The Committee
understands that a significant number of facilities require
upgraded power distribution links. The current electronic
configurations have caused power outages and resulted in
significant flight delays. The Committee directs that the FAA
establish a national program to update the power distribution
systems at up to 25 facilities with problems, including the
establishment of cost and schedule baselines and adjustment in
its capital investment plan to ensure the expeditious solution
to this problem.
LANDING AND NAVIGATION AIDS
Instrument landing system establishment.--Within the funds
provided, the Committee directs the following distribution:
Completion of ILS at Northeastern Regional Airport, $500,000
Edenton, North Carolina..............................
Completion of ILS at Somerset Airport, Somerset, 400,000
Kentucky.............................................
Completion of ILS at Saline County Airport, Arkansas.. 400,000
Continue ILS at Aiken Municipal Airport, South 300,000
Carolina.............................................
ILS Independence Municipal Airport, Kansas, (meets 700,000
cost-benefit test)...................................
Approach lighting system improvement programs.--Within the
funds provided, the Committee directs the following
distribution:
Continuation of MALSR at Rutland State Airport, $700,000
Vermont..............................................
Continuation of runway and centerline lighting, 500,000
Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, Mississippi.................
FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) and GPS approaches.--
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget request of
$115,900,000 for the wide area augmentation system includes
$4,100,000 for the development of additional approaches and
flight procedures at the nation's non-part 139 certified
airports. The Committee supports this effort, and has provided
$120,900,000 for WAAS, an increase of $5,000,000 above the
budget request. Additional funds are provided to publish WAAS
approaches at airports at non-Part 139 airports without an
existing ILS approach.
Loran C.--The Coast Guard has proposed terminating the
Loran C program in the President's budget because it believes
this system is no longer necessary for a secondary means of
navigation. The Committee understands that a decision to
terminate Loran C is dependent upon agreement by DOT, which has
not occurred. The Committee also understands that in late 2006,
DOT convened an independent assessment team, in cooperation
with DHS, to complete yet another evaluation of Loran C. The
team concluded that Loran C should be retained and modernized
to serve as a long-term back-up for GPS. The Committee assumes
continuation of Loran C in fiscal year 2008.
Terminal air modernization replacement (TAMR phase II).--
The FAA has not, despite the tremendous attention, prodding,
and funding from this Committee, completed contract
negotiations for the display upgrades at the Chicago, Denver,
Minneapolis, and St. Louis sites. Since these sites are large
and critical to the national airspace system, these aging
controller displays have particular safety implications. In
fact, the IG identified these four sites as critical in
November 2004, due to their significant reliability problems,
insufficient computer memory, and insufficient data processing
capability.
In the fiscal year 2006 Act, the Committee noted its
concern regarding FAA's estimated timeline to award the
contract to update the displays and complete the project.
However, the Committee was encouraged when the two viable
contractors came together in January 2006 with a single
proposal for all sites. The promise and expectation was that
the alliance would allow these facilities to be updated up to
10 months earlier and at a cheaper price.
However, the project has been plagued by delays apparently
associated with intracontractual issues between the contractors
as well as with FAA's technical solution which assumed minimal
software changes. In order to motivate the contractors to reach
a cost agreement, the FAA was forced to limit funding provided
under the ``not to exceed'' contract.
On May 31, the parties reached a cost agreement. A
definitized contract is expected to be executed by June 30, and
project completion is slated for July 2008. Clearly, the
Committee is disappointed that any savings in time and money
associated with the project has evaporated and remains
concerned that critical upgrades to large sites with a history
of failures will not be complete for over a year.
MISSION SUPPORT
Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The Committee provides $81,000,000 for CAASD, an increase of
$6,800,000 above the budget estimate, and equal to the fiscal
year 2007 enacted level. This funding level will continue
CAASD's valuable contributions to many of FAA's programs, but
particularly the critical input to NextGen and runway safety
programs.
CAASD's ability to simulate NextGen capabilities is vital
to FAA's success now and in the future. This increase will fund
simulation and evaluations of future concepts that are part of
NextGen and the evolution to NextGen (including changes in
roles and responsibilities for controllers, pilots and both
aircraft and ground system automation; new concepts in airspace
management; and use of procedures based on required navigation
performance). It will allow CAASD to develop requirements and
perform alternatives analysis for the operational and system
architecture evolution of the NAS toward NextGen.
Further, regarding runway safety programs, this funding
level will allow CAASD to conduct simulation of runway
incursion encounters similar to the 2005 Boston Logan near miss
and 2006 Chicago O'Hare near miss and prepare evaluation plans
for experimental deployment at a selected major airport. It
will fund human-in-the-loop simulations for design and
evaluation of a runway incursion warning system that resides in
each aircraft and is not dependent on airport ground
infrastructure. A flight-deck-based system would be applicable
to a large number of mid-sized and smaller airports that don't
have expensive surface surveillance systems.
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $459,973,000 for personnel and
related expenses. This appropriation finances the installation
and commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA
facilities.
Collaboration with collective bargaining units.--The
Committee notes that participation by FAA's users and servicers
and their respective collective bargaining unit organizations
is vitally important to ensure the best capital products and
solutions for both the FAA and the flying public. History has
shown the early and continuous inclusion of subject matter
experts can prevent seemingly subtle problems that could have
challenging and expensive consequences. This lesson was very
clear in the middle 1990s during the development of the
standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS). The
FAA severely limited controller input, which resulted in
significant cost overruns and schedule delays. These
relationships are critical, particularly as the FAA plans and
develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen).
The Committee understands that the FAA's imposed work rules
have caused confusion about collective bargaining unit
participation in capital program development. In a May 23
letter to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA), FAA clarified that the relationship would continue.
The FAA states that the imposed work rules define a process for
establishing workgroups for technology and procedural changes,
and that NATCA can submit a list of individuals to FAA to
assist in the NextGen Activities. It also explains that the
President of NATCA has an existing seat on two primary traffic
advisory committees, the joint program and development office's
institute management counsel, and the operational evolution
partnership (OEP) associates team. In a May 24 letter, the FAA
invites NATCA to continue to take part on the OEP, and in a
separate letter, invites PASS to participate on the OEP.
The Committee is encouraged that the FAA appears to
understand the importance of collective bargaining
participation in air traffic modernization projects, and
directs the FAA to continue this spirit of cooperation so
fundamental to the success of the agency.
BILL LANGUAGE
Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the
submission of a five year capital investment plan.
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $130,234,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 140,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 140,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +9,766,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
This appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $140,000,000, an increase of
$9,766,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and equal
to the President's budget estimate.
A table showing the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2008 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Committee
Program enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Commercial Aviation Safety..................... $88,231,780 $91,256,000 $91,256,000
Fire research and safety........................... 6,638,000 7,350,000 7,350,000
Propulsion and fuel systems........................ 4,048,000 4,086,000 4,086,000
Advanced materials/structural safety............... 2,843,000 2,713,000 2,713,000
Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety.......... 3,848,000 3,574,000 3,574,000
Aging aircraft..................................... 18,621,000 14,931,000 14,931,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention........... 1,512,000 2,202,000 2,202,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration.............. 7,999,000 9,651,000 9,651,000
Aviation safety risk analysis...................... 5,292,000 9,517,000 9,517,000
ATC/AF human factors............................... 9,654,000 10,254,000 10,254,000
Aeromedical research............................... 7,031,780 6,780,000 6,780,000
Weather research................................... 19,545,000 16,888,000 16,888,000
Unmanned aircraft system........................... 1,200,000 3,310,000 3,310,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System................... 21,166,000 28,676,000 28,676,000
Joint program and development office............... 18,100,000 14,321,000 14,321,000
Wake turbulence.................................... 3,066,000 10,755,000 10,755,000
GPS Civil Requirements............................. 0 3,600,000 3,600,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts........................... 16,017,410 15,469,000 15,469,000
Environment and energy............................. 16,017,410 15,469,000 15,469,000
Mission Support........................................ 4,818,450 4,599,000 4,599,000
System planning and resource mgmt.................. 1,388,450 1,184,000 1,184,000
Technical laboratory facilities.................... 3,430,000 3,415,000 3,415,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 130,233,640 140,000,000 140,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helicopter emergency medical services weather tool.--The
Committee notes that the air ambulance industry improves the
survival of trauma victims and other critical patients. Air
ambulance flights are subject to greater risks than other
helicopter operations because they often fly at night, in a
variety of weather conditions, and to remote sites to provide
medical attention. The Committee notes that the FAA research
budget increases funding for the helicopter emergency medical
services weather tool and the national ceiling visibility
research from the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee
supports this program which provides weather information for
low altitude, off-airport operations and helps ensure safety.
Flight data and cockpit voice recorders.--The Committee
understands that the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) plans to evaluate the safety and security benefits of
deployable flight data and cockpit voice recorders equipped
with emergency locator transmitters. The Committee encourages
FAA to coordinate with TSA to test such technologies on
civilian passenger aircraft in order to identify those that
would improve the survivability of flight data and cockpit
voice recorders following civil aviation disasters.
Flight attendant fatigue.--The Committee directs FAA to
continue to study the phenomenon of flight attendant fatigue.
The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute's September 2005 report
stated that ``flight attendant fatigue appears to be a salient
issue warranting further evaluation''. It recommended continued
study on incident reports, field research on fatigue, improving
models for assessing flight attendant fatigue, review of
international policies and practices, and development of
training material.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007... $4,399,000,000 ($3,514,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.. 4,300,000,000 (2,750,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 4,399,000,000 (3,600,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year --- (+85,500,000)
2007.........................
Budget request, fiscal year +99,000,000 (+850,000,000)
2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$4,399,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, airport program
administration, and other authorized activities. This is
$99,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's
budget and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is $850,000,000 above
the President's budget and $85,500,000 over the fiscal year
2007 level.
ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $80,676,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA. In addition, $10,000,000 is for
the airport cooperative research pilot program, and up to
$18,712,000 for the airport technology research. These levels
are consistent with the request.
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
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 multiyear
letters of intent.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.022
(RESCISSION)
Rescission, fiscal year 2007.......................... -$25,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommened in the bill................................ -$185,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007...................... -160,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................... -185,500,000
The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of
contract authorization of $185,500,000 from contract authority
in fiscal year 2007 above the obligation limitation provided in
that year. Therefore, this rescission has no effect on any
grants-in-aid program.
BILL LANGUAGE
Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the
fiscal year 2004 through 2007 Appropriations Acts, the bill
allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to
procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and
devices.
Small community air service development program.--The bill
specifies that $10,000,000 of the total amount limited is
available to continue the small community air service
development program.
Administration and research programs.--The bill provides
that, within the overall obligation limitation, $80,676,000 is
available for administration of the airports program by the
FAA. The Committee also provides $10,000,000 for the airport
cooperative research pilot program, and up to $18,712,000 for
the airport technology research program.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring
FAA to accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated
equipment procured by airports, subject to certain criteria.
Section 111. The Committee retains, without modification, a
provision limiting the number of technical workyears at the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 375 in
fiscal year 2008.
Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency
``without cost'' building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in
the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 113. The Committee continues a provision allowing
reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C.
45303.
Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations
account.
Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending
the current terms and conditions of FAA's aviation insurance
program, commonly known as the ``war risk insurance'' program,
for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31,
2008. This will extend provisions relating to premium price
caps, which were set to expire at the end of this calendar
year. In addition, it also extends the underlying program from
March 2008 to December 31, 2008. The Committee recommendation
preserves the status quo under this program, a savings of
$164,000,000 from the budget estimate. Savings accrue because
the bill's provisions result in additional revenue from
insurance premiums, which were assumed to be zero in the budget
estimate for fiscal year 2008.
Section. 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve
roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other
agencies and organizations involved in road building
activities. Title 23 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.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10,
2005, provides for increased transportation infrastructure
investment, strengthens transportation safety and environmental
programs, and continues core research activities. SAFETEA-LU
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to continue two
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety
grants funding and NHTSA's highway safety research and
development funding. If appropriations action forces highway
obligations to exceed this level, the resulting difference in
outlays is charged to the discretionary spending category. In
addition, in fiscal year 2008, if receipts into the highway
account of the highway trust fund exceed levels specified in
SAFETEA-LU, automatic adjustments are made to increase or
decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category
accordingly. Additional resources provided by this automatic
spending mechanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority
(RABA).
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 PROGRAM
SAFETEA-LU caps the highway category obligations at
$40,824,075,404 in fiscal year 2008 and, within that amount,
limits federal-aid highway obligations to $39,585,075,404. In
addition, the provisions of SAFETEA-LU require an increase of
$630,975,955 in fiscal year 2008 in federal-aid highway funding
due to RABA. This combined total highway funding level of
$40,216,051,359 represents a 3.2 percent increase over the
fiscal year 2007 enacted level of $38,965,232,253. The
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the levels
guaranteed by SAFETEA-LU, as adjusted for RABA. The following
table summarizes the program levels within the FHWA for fiscal
year 2007 enacted, the fiscal year 2008 budget request and the
Committee's recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008
Program enacted request Recommended in the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways................. \1\ $38,122,978 $39,585,075 $39,585,075
Revenue aligned budget authority 842,254 -- 630,976
(RABA)..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 38,965,232 39,585,075 40,216,051
Exempt contract authority............ 740,737 739,000 739,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 39,705,969 40,324,075 40,955,051
Appropriation for pay raise (Sec. 2,794 -- --
111, P.L. 110-5)....................
Appalachian development highway 19,800 -- --
system (GF).........................
Emergency relief program--P.L. 110-28 871,022 -- --
(GF)................................
Rescission of contract authority..... -4,342,604 -1,999,976 -3,385,286
Rescission of budget authority....... -- -409,469 -4,765
==========================================================================
Total........................ 36,256,981 37,914,630 37,565,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects transfer of funds to NHTSA.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... ($360,991,620)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... (384,556,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (384,556,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... (+23,564,380)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
This limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the FHWA required to conduct and administer the
federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most
other federal highway programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $384,556,000,
consistent with the budget request and $23,564,380 above the
fiscal year 2007 level.
Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--The funding level
provided by the Committee includes the resources necessary for
the FHWA to fill 215 vacancies in order to hire up to the FTE
ceiling of 2,430 FTE in fiscal year 2008.
Unobligated balances in miscellaneous accounts.--The
Committee has once again included several provisions in the
bill that rescinds unobligated balances of contract authority
that are either no longer needed because the projects have been
completed or cannot be spent due to limitations on obligations
set in this Act or prior Acts, such as SAFETEA-LU. The
Committee continues to encourage the FHWA to identify unneeded
balances, especially related to unobligated highway project
funds which have been designated for specific purposes and
geographic locations and cannot be used for another project
without legislative action and which would otherwise remain
unobligated indefinitely. Therefore, the Committee directs the
FHWA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2008, detailing how the agency is
reviewing unobligated project funds and the processes it has
for notifying Congress of those projects where legislative
action is needed. In addition, the Committee understands that
Section 1603 of SAFETEA-LU addresses the use of excess funds
and funds for inactive projects that were allocated before
fiscal year 1991. The Committee directs the FHWA to include
with the fiscal year 2009 budget submission a description of
any action taken under that section in fiscal year 2007.
LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... ($425,502,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... (429,800,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (429,800,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... (+4,298,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
This limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology contract programs of the FHWA. It
includes a number of contract programs including surface
transportation research, training and education, university
transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems
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 recommendation includes an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2008 for
the following transportation research programs:
Surface transportation research......................... $196,400,000
Training and education.................................. 26,700,000
Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 27,000,000
University transportation research...................... 69,700,000
Intelligent transportation systems research............. 110,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $429,800,000
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year $36,032,343,903 ($38,965,232,253)
2007.........................
Budget request, fiscal year 38,000,000,000 (39,585,075,404)
2008.........................
Recommended in the bill....... 40,955,051,359 (40,216,051,359)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +4,922,707,456 (+1,250,819,106)
2007.....................
Budget request, fiscal +2,955,051,359 (+630,975,955)
year 2008................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal-aid highways (FAH) program is designed to aid
in the development, operations and management of an intermodal
transportation system that is economically efficient,
environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation
to compete in the global economy, and moves people and goods
safely.
All programs included within FAH are financed from the
highway trust fund and most are distributed via apportionments
and allocations to states. The FAH program is funded by
contract authority in SAFETEA-LU and liquidating cash
appropriations are subsequently provided to fund outlays
resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $40,955,051,359. This is the amount required to pay the
outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2008
federal-aid highways obligations to $40,216,051,359, consistent
with the SAFETEA-LU highway funding guarantees as adjusted for
RABA. Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be
calculated is available to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) for the motor carrier safety grant
program and bill language is included to transfer this funding
to FMCSA.
The Committee has also included bill language that allows
the Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for
a direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the
cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of
the Department. These fees are not subject to any obligation
limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for
the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation
program under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.
Although the following table reflects an estimated
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated
obligations by program within the $40,216,051,359 provided by
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent
law:
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2008
Programs FY 2006 FY 2007 est.
limitation limitation limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface transportation 5,139,465 5,621,419 5,998,864
program.....................
National highway system...... 4,879,210 5,337,589 5,696,201
Interstate maintenance....... 3,994,609 4,370,819 4,664,604
Bridge program............... 3,412,935 3,734,641 3,985,720
Congestion mitigation and air 1,393,288 1,523,840 1,626,137
quality improvement.........
Highway safety improvement 866,641 931,854 994,124
program.....................
Equity bonus................. 5,858,197 7,500,737 8,495,718
Surface transportation 169,159 180,829 188,155
research program............
University transportation 83,029 88,757 92,353
research and training and
education...................
ITS standards, research and 94,743 101,279 105,382
development.................
Bureau of Transportation 26,730 27,469 27,401
Statistics..................
Federal lands highways....... 701,440 815,623 913,951
High priority projects....... 2,554,960 2,731,212 2,841,869
Projects of national and 306,451 409,488 426,079
regional significance.......
National corridor 335,562 448,389 466,555
infrastructure improvement
program.....................
Transportation improvements.. 440,165 588,162 611,991
Appalachian development 395,296 423,820 443,680
highway system..............
Transportation, community, 52,755 56,394 58,679
and system preservation
program.....................
Other programs............... 4,501,315 3,720,825 2,077,154
Transportation infrastructure 105,079 112,327 116,878
finance and innovation
(TIFIA).....................
Administration............... 360,992 360,992 384,556
--------------------------------------
Total subject to 35,672,020 39,086,465 40,216,051
obligation limitation...
======================================
Emergency relief program......... 100,000 101,737 100,000
Equity bonus..................... 639,000 639,000 639,000
--------------------------------------
Total exempt programs.... 739,000 740,737 739,000
======================================
Emergency relief supplements..... \1\ 3,452,3 \1\ 871,022 --
63
======================================
Grand total, Federal-aid 39,863,383 40,698,224 40,955,051
highways (direct).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Fund appropriation (FY 2006: P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234; FY
2007: P.L. 110-28).
The following table reflects the estimated distribution of
the federal-aid limitation by state:
ESTIMATED FY 2008 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Formula Appalachian
State Obligation Obligation Equity Bonus Development Total
Limitation Limitation RABA Highway System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................. 574,512 10,556 53,532 27,598 666,198
Alaska................................................... 243,543 4,885 44,021 0 292,449
Arizona.................................................. 597,127 10,415 50,328 0 657,870
Arkansas................................................. 380,533 6,684 27,463 0 414,679
California............................................... 2,691,034 46,479 160,315 0 2,897,828
Colorado................................................. 418,986 6,962 17,656 0 443,604
Connecticut.............................................. 389,789 6,870 31,802 0 428,461
Delaware................................................. 125,382 2,104 4,119 0 131,605
District of Columbia..................................... 132,556 2,093 0 0 134,649
Florida.................................................. 1,530,876 27,251 157,052 0 1,715,180
Georgia.................................................. 1,035,159 18,773 110,253 16,915 1,181,100
Hawaii................................................... 131,046 2,157 4,473 0 137,676
Idaho.................................................... 222,907 3,918 20,314 0 247,139
Illinois................................................. 1,028,307 17,608 69,938 0 1,115,853
Indiana.................................................. 770,454 13,637 75,058 0 859,149
Iowa..................................................... 354,165 5,698 5,433 0 365,296
Kansas................................................... 326,680 5,194 1,858 0 333,733
Kentucky................................................. 475,864 9,082 28,023 64,727 577,697
Louisiana................................................ 483,954 8,228 16,224 0 508,406
Maine.................................................... 147,535 2,329 957 0 150,822
Maryland................................................. 502,661 8,534 25,576 6,054 542,824
Massachusetts............................................ 526,252 8,485 8,976 0 543,713
Michigan................................................. 921,922 15,850 66,475 0 1,004,257
Minnesota................................................ 478,810 8,462 36,600 0 523,871
Mississippi.............................................. 371,396 6,378 15,495 5,005 398,273
Missouri................................................. 715,227 12,406 44,431 0 772,064
Montana.................................................. 285,830 5,062 27,966 0 318,858
Nebraska................................................. 239,274 3,869 4,626 0 247,769
Nevada................................................... 219,343 3,677 10,889 0 233,909
New Hampshire............................................ 140,319 2,332 5,941 0 148,592
New Jersey............................................... 843,506 14,362 53,217 0 911,085
New Mexico............................................... 290,791 5,062 17,988 0 313,841
New York................................................. 1,380,978 23,097 48,816 21,309 1,474,199
North Carolina........................................... 840,850 15,287 73,519 30,095 965,751
North Dakota............................................. 200,631 3,280 5,726 0 209,637
Ohio..................................................... 1,079,562 19,401 85,826 19,373 1,204,163
Oklahoma................................................. 469,938 8,022 30,723 0 508,683
Oregon................................................... 363,870 6,010 7,656 0 377,536
Pennsylvania............................................. 1,281,461 23,021 63,759 97,623 1,465,865
Rhode Island............................................. 162,579 2,606 0 0 165,184
South Carolina........................................... 516,420 8,974 39,625 2,742 567,762
South Dakota............................................. 205,494 3,538 10,899 0 219,932
Tennessee................................................ 637,864 11,767 47,726 33,012 730,369
Texas.................................................... 2,588,489 45,211 221,331 0 2,855,031
Utah..................................................... 230,993 3,843 9,971 0 244,807
Vermont.................................................. 137,108 2,204 0 0 139,312
Virginia................................................. 792,638 14,545 63,741 31,562 902,486
Washington............................................... 554,232 8,968 11,085 0 574,286
West Virginia............................................ 252,516 5,692 17,342 81,664 357,214
Wisconsin................................................ 582,621 10,308 56,565 0 649,495
Wyoming.................................................. 205,914 3,596 8,689 0 218,199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................. 30,079,897 524,781 2,000,000 443,680 33,048,358
High priority projects................................... 2,797,815 44,054 0 0 2,841,869
Allocated programs....................................... 4,263,684 62,140 0 0 4,325,824
==============================================================================================
Total limitation..................................... 37,141,395 630,976 2,000,000 443,680 40,216,051
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
federal government provides financial support for construction
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary
with the type of road.
There are almost four million miles of public roads in the
United States and approximately 594,000 bridges. The federal
government provides grants to states to assist in financing the
construction and preservation of about 971,000 miles (24
percent) of these roads, which represents the National Highway
System plus key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible
for federal aid carry about 85 percent of total U.S. highway
traffic. Under SAFETEA-LU, federal-aid highways funds are made
available through the following major programs:
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 four-year
availability period.
National highway system (NHS).--The NHS program provides
funding for a designated National Highway 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. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was
enacted in 1995 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) added to the system the highways and
connections to transportation facilities identified in the May
24, 1996, report to Congress. The federal share for the NHS
program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale
adjustment, with an availability period of four-years.
Interstate maintenance (IM) program.--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 four years.
Funds provided for the IM discretionary program in fiscal
year 2008 shall be available for the following activities in
the corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.024
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--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 four-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
2008 funding for the bridge program that is designated 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 \1/2\ percent of the
apportionment is guaranteed to each state.
The Committee strongly disagrees with the FHWA's proposal
to change its longstanding policy regarding the use of CMAQ
funds for operating assistance for new start projects. The
previous policy established under TEA-21 allowed CMAQ funds to
be used for operating assistance to help support the initiation
of new rail and bus service for up to three years. The FHWA's
proposed guidance continues to permit the use of CMAQ for bus
service but unfairly denies fixed guideway projects needed
funds for new transit operations. The Committee believes that
new rail systems have a beneficial effect on air quality and
congestion which is the very purpose of the CMAQ program.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that SAFETEA-LU
required any change to the existing standard in this regard.
Finally, with the Administration's announcement on May 31,
2007, regarding a ``new international climate change
framework'' and its related goal of reducing greenhouse gases,
the Committee believes it is timely and appropriate to direct
the Secretary to revisit this proposed policy and reinstitute
CMAQ eligibility regarding operating assistance for new start
projects for up to three years.
Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).--The new HSIP
(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.
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 at $470,000,000
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.
Equity bonus program.--The equity bonus (replaces TEA-21'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 TEA-21. Certain
states will maintain the share of total apportionments they
each received during TEA-21. An open-ended authorization is
provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet
the objectives of the equity bonus.
Emergency relief (ER).--The ER 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.
The authorization for the ER program has been set at
$100,000,000 per year since 1972. However, the number of
disasters and the expense associated with the damages caused by
these disasters has far exceeded this annual authorization for
a very long time. In fact, a GAO report issued in February 2007
noted that ER allocations have averaged over $730,000,000 per
year from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2006 and the
additional needs for this program have been met by supplemental
funding measures provided by this Committee. During
consideration of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act,
2007, the Committee once again worked to address the needs of
the ER program. However, during this process, it came to the
Committee's attention that there were inconsistencies with
regard to how projects were placed on the FHWA's ER backlog
list and how pending ER requests were being communicated to
Congress. In light of this, the Committee directs the FHWA to
undertake a review of the ER program and update the policy and
procedures manual used by the FHWA, state Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), and local transportation agencies to
apply and administer ER funds. The review should address and
make appropriate improvements to the process used by the FHWA
to approve and process ER funding requests; the process and
documentation required to establish eligibility; the process
used to encourage states to expeditiously submit formal
requests, and other issues identified during the review by the
FHWA or state DOTs. The Committee directs the FHWA to provide a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
December 1, 2007, on the results of the review.
Federal lands.--This category funds improvement for forest
highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads;
and refuge roads. The federal lands highways 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.
Funds provided for the federallands program in fiscal year
2008 shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.025
The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to
be derived from the FHWA's public lands highways discretionary
program and not from funds allocated to the National Park
Service's regions.
Baltimore Washington Parkway feasibility study.--The
Committee directs the FHWA's Office of Federal Lands Highways
to work with the National Park Service and the Maryland State
Highway Administration to determine the feasibility of adding a
third northbound and a third southbound lane for Maryland Route
295/Baltimore Washington Parkway from the intersection with
Interstate 695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia.
The FHWA shall prepare a report which must be submitted to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this Act, on the
feasibility of such a widening. The feasibility study shall
include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and
Closure process on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295
corridor between Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC.
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. In
fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA-LU provides $65,000,000 for the ferry
boat program.
Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program in fiscal year 2008 shall be available for
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.026
National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
In fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA-LU provides $40,000,000 for this
program.
Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP)
program.--SAFETEA-LU continues the TCSP program to provide
grants to states and local governments for planning,
developing, and implementing strategies to integrate
transportation, 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.
Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2008
shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.032
Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation
(TIFIA) program.--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to
assist in the development of surface transportation projects of
regional and national significance. The goal is to develop
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. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with
the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit
obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct
loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or
commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of
this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a present
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a
cash basis.
Federal highway research, technology and education.--
Research, technology, and education programs develop new
transportation technology that can be applied nationwide.
Activities include surface transportation research, including
intelligent transportation systems; development and deployment,
training and education; university transportation research.
High priority projects.--Funds are provided for specific
projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. A total of 5,091 projects
are identified, each with a specified amount of funding over
the five years of SAFETEA-LU.
Projects of national and regional significance.--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.
Congestion Reduction Initiative.--The budget requested
$175,000,000 to support a new Department-wide effort to tackle
congestion in all modes of transportation. The stated goal of
this initiative was to improve quality of life and economic
growth by spreading demand by route, mode, and time of day, and
by more efficient operation of the existing transportation
system. The budget proposed to fund this initiative by
reprogramming unobligated balances associated with what was
described as ``inactive'' Federal-aid highway program
demonstration projects.
The Committee believes that efforts to reduce congestion
are a worthwhile objective. However, the Committee cannot
support this initiative as proposed by the Administration.
First, the Administration did not do a thorough analysis to
determine whether the proposed funding source--the
reprogramming of inactive project funding--was, in fact, no
longer needed by those projects. The Committee also believes
that the Administration's congestion proposal should have been
more comprehensive in scope and had involved other modal
administrations. For instance, the Administration's budget
request was a bit disingenuous in that it requested
$175,000,000 for a congestion reduction initiative at the same
time it also proposed major cuts to Amtrak and transit
programs. Clearly, rail and transit should be a major part of
any initiatives to reduce congestion. The Committee notes that
the Administration has significant discretion with regard to
selecting projects for the various highway and transit
allocated programs in the fiscal year 2007. The Committee will
review how the Administration uses these resources to address
congestion and determine whether additional funding for the
congestion initiative needs to be revisited either later in the
fiscal year 2008 process or in next year's budget.
Impacts of Defense Base Realignments on Transportation.--
The Committee understands that GAO has an ongoing review of the
effects of Department of Defense (DOD) rebasing initiatives on
communities and is assessing the economic impacts on
communities surrounding DOD bases receiving large numbers of
personnel as a result of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC), overseas rebasing, and Army modularity actions The
Committee directs GAO to include as a part of that review the
impacts DOD's base realignments will have on transit and
transportation needs in these regions. GAO's analysis should
take into account BRAC related traffic projections for the next
decade and the associated future planning needs of state and
local governments while ensuring the national security needs of
these facilities. GAO should coordinate their evaluation with
DOT, and with the appropriate state transportation agencies to
the extent possible, to include comprehensive and innovative
solutions to anticipate and relieve congestion and
transportation alternatives that will help reduce carbon
emissions.
(RESCISSION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The bill includes a rescission of $3,000,000,000 of the
unobligated balances of funds apportioned to the states under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, and applies this
rescission proportionally to each highway program, including
funds set aside for transportation enhancements and within the
state of population areas.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highways
programs.
Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed
demonstration or high priority projects from the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
240. The specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded
were identified in information provided to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and referenced in a GAO letter to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations dated May 11,
2006. The FHWA should also look at closing out projects with
small balances, such as less than $2,000, in order to achieve
the amount rescinded in the bill.
Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed high
priority projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century, Public Law 105-178. The specific authorizations
and amounts to be rescinded were also identified by GAO in
their May 11, 2006, letter.
Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program.
Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for
administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available
for obligation because of the limitation on administrative
expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts.
Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for
transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109-59 that
will not be available for obligation because of the limitation
on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act and prior
Acts.
Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances made available for highway
related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed
demonstration or high priority projects from previous laws. The
specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded were
identified in information provided to GAO and referenced in
their letter dated May 11, 2006.
Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that
provides additional funding to the transportation, community,
and system preservation program.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial
vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To accomplish this
mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and
severity of large truck accidents. Agency resources and
activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle
operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger
enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited safety
regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information
systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver's
license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish
these activities, the FMCSA works closely with federal, state,
and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry,
highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. In
addition, the FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that
Mexican commercial vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance
with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all
U.S. hazardous material and safety regulations.
The FMCSA's scope was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the
U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56), which called for new
security measures. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2002,
Appropriations Acts (Public Law 107-87, Public Law 108-7,
Public Law 108-199, and Public Law 108-447) have funded border
enforcement and safety related activities associated with
implementation of NAFTA, and activities associated with
permitting of hazardous materials.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10,
2005, reauthorizes the motor carrier safety activities of FMCSA
through fiscal year 2009 and provides increased funding for
many of the agency's programs. Funding for the FMCSA is also
included within a highway discretionary spending category in
the Budget Enforcement Act that is adjusted annually beginning
in fiscal year 2007 based on receipts into the highway account
of the highway trust fund. Additional resources provided by
this automatic spending mechanism are called revenue-aligned
budget authority (RABA) and a portion of this adjustment is
added to FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.. $294,000,000 ($294,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008. 300,000,000 (300,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.......... 300,000,000 (300,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +6,000,000 (+6,000,000)
2007........................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2008........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA's motor carrier safety grants program was
authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, and continued through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA-LU.
This account provides the necessary resources to the motor
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) state grants. Grants
are used to support compliance reviews in the states; 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 U.S. are fortified with comprehensive safety
measures; for improvement of state commercial driver's license
(CDL) oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from
being issued CDLs; and for improving the linkage between state
motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety data in
order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $300,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$300,000,000 for the grant programs of FMCSA. This level is
consistent with SAFETEA-LU and is $6,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2007 level. In addition, consistent with SAFETEA-LU, the
highway funding guarantees are adjusted for RABA in fiscal year
2008. Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be
calculated is available to FMCSA for the motor carrier safety
grant program and bill language is included under the Federal
Highway Administration to transfer this funding to FMCSA.
The bill also provides separate obligation limitations for
the following funding allocations:
Motor carrier safety assistance program................. ($202,000,000)
Commercial driver's license improvements program........ (25,000,000)
Border enforcement grants............................... (32,000,000)
Performance and registration information system
management program.................................. (5,000,000)
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks
deployment program.................................. (25,000,000)
Safety data improvement program......................... (3,000,000)
Commercial driver's license information system
modernization program............................... (8,000,000)
New entrant audits.--Section 4107 of SAFETEA-LU provides
the Secretary the discretion to deduct up to $29,000,000 of the
funds made available for motor carrier safety grants for audits
of new entrant motor carriers. The interim final rule for the
new entrant safety assurance process was published on May 13,
2002, with an effective date of January 2003. This rule
requires all new entrants to pass a safety audit within the
first 18 months of operations in order to receive permanent DOT
registration. Therefore, the Committee recommendation continues
bill language requiring FMCSA to provide $29,000,000 for new
entrant audits.
Unobligated balances.--The Committee includes bill language
that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under
this heading that will not be available for obligation because
of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in
previous acts.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007... $223,000,000 ($223,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.. 228,000,000 (228,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 228,000,000 (228,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +5,000,000 (+5,000,000)
2007.........................
Budget request, fiscal year - - - (- - -)
2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This limitation controls spending for salaries and
operating expenses and for motor carrier research by the FMCSA.
It 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 U.S.
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 safety and consumer telephone hotline.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $228,000,000 in liquidating cash
for the operations and research activities of the FMCSA,
consistent with the amount of contract authority provided under
SAFETEA-LU.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$228,000,000 for the implementation, execution, and
administration of the motor carrier safety program, motor
carrier safety research, and motor carrier outreach and
education programs by the FMCSA. This funding level is
consistent with SAFETEA-LU and represents a $5,000,000 increase
over fiscal year 2007.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted
level to the fiscal year 2008 budget estimate and the
Committee's recommendation for these specific programs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008
enacted estimate House recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses..................................... $161,176,000 $172,659,000 $169,413,000
Research and Technology................................ 10,296,000 7,550,000 10,296,000
Information Management................................. 34,318,000 33,329,000 33,329,000
Regulatory Development................................. 11,210,000 9,462,000 11,462,000
Outreach and Education................................. 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,500,000
CMV Operating Grants................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 222,000,000 228,000,000 228,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.--The Committee recommendation includes
$169,413,000 for the operating expenses of FMCSA which is an
increase of $8,237,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level
and a decrease of $3,246,000 below the level requested in the
budget. These funds are to be used to support FMCSA's core
mission requirements of commercial motor vehicle safety
enforcement and compliance; hazardous material enforcement and
compliance; hazardous materials security operations and
outreach; emergency preparedness; and household goods
enforcement and compliance. The Committee approves FMCSA's
requested increase of $7,149,000 for personnel pay,
compensation and benefits. In addition, the Committee approves
FMCSA's request to provide $1,000,000 for the operations of the
Performance and Registration Information System Management
Program (PRISM). However, the Committee disagrees with FMCSA's
proposal to increase the agency's contract services by 33.5
percent above last year's enacted level.
Reduce contract services................................ -$3,246,000
Safety compliance reviews.--Motor carrier safety has been
on the National Transportation Safety Board's ``Most Wanted
Transportation Safety Improvements'' list since 2000 due to
FMCSA's inadequate standards to identify unsafe vehicles and
drivers. In that regard, the Committee continues to be greatly
concerned that only a very small percentage of registered motor
carriers undergo a safety compliance review each year.
According to the agency's own budget documents, FMCSA has not
increased the number of compliance reviews since fiscal year
2005. This is not acceptable. With over 685,000 registered
interstate motor carriers, the Committee strongly believes
FMCSA should strive to increase the number of compliance
reviews each year and not be satisfied with a compliance review
rate of less than 1.5 percent. The Committee expects FMCSA to
prepare a safety oversight action plan that will achieve
significant increases in the number of compliance reviews that
the agency completes each year. The Committee directs FMCSA to
provide a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within six months of enactment of this Act that
compares the agency's compliance review goals to the actual
number of completed compliance reviews.
Research and technology.--The Committee recommendation
includes $10,296,000 for FMCSA's research and technology
programs which is the same level provided in fiscal year 2007
and $2,746,000 above the level requested in the budget. The
Committee includes bill language making the funds for the
research and technology programs available until September 30,
2009. The research and technology program is utilized to
conduct scientific studies of commercial motor vehicle
technologies as well as to test and develop commercial motor
vehicle driver, carrier, vehicle and roadside best practices
and technologies. The Committee disagrees with the budget
request to reduce the research and technology efforts of the
FMCSA below the levels provided in fiscal year 2007. The
Committee believes that advances in commercial motor vehicle
research and technology hold promise for improving safety on
our nation's highways.
Increase research and technology........................ +$2,746,000
Information management.--The Committee recommendation
includes $33,329,000 for the FMCSA's information management
program which is $989,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted
level and the same level requested in the budget. FMCSA will
continue its development and deployment of the creating
opportunities, methods, processes, and securing safety
(COMPASS) program which will modernize the FMCSA's information
technology systems by providing a single sign-on capability to
access the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS), the Enforcement Management Information System, and
Licensing and Insurance data systems. Future releases of
COMPASS will seek to integrate FMCSA's compliance monitoring
functions such as new entrant safety audits; hazardous material
safety permits; insurance cancellation monitoring; compliance
review ratings; driver medical certification and the process of
out-of-service orders. Given the importance of the safety data
in evaluating the performance of commercial motor vehicle
carriers, the Committee directs the FMCSA to provide a spend
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which
details the expected timeline, cost and capability of each
release of COMPASS through full deployment. FMCSA is directed
to deliver this expenditure plan to the Committees no later
than 90 days after enactment.
Regulatory development.--The Committee includes $11,462,000
for FMCSA's regulatory development program which represents an
increase of $252,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level
and $2,000,000 above the level requested in the budget. The
Committee strongly believes that FMCSA should not reduce its
regulatory development efforts at a time when the agency
carries a backlog of overdue safety regulations and when the
Courts have found other key safety regulations to be inadequate
in meeting safety goals. The Committee is concerned that the
agency's effort to reduce the backlog of pending regulations
may result in rules that are not thoroughly developed. While
the Committee expects the FMCSA to produce safety regulations
in a timely fashion, the Committee believes that FMCSA must
take great care to ensure that rules are constructed to advance
the agency's safety goals and not simply rushed to publication
only to have them later remanded or vacated by the Courts. The
Committee has included an increase for regulatory development
with the expectation that FMCSA will utilize these resources to
produce quality safety regulations in a timely manner.
Increase regulatory development......................... +$2,000,000
Entry level truck driver training.--The Committee restates
its concern regarding last year's U.S. Court of Appeals
unanimous decision remanding the FMCSA's final rule on entry
level truck driver training. In their decision, the Court found
that FMCSA did not adequately address the recommendations of a
DOT contracted adequacy report and independent model curriculum
on driver training. According to the Court, FMCSA ``entirely
failed to consider important aspects of the CMV training
problems before it; it largely ignored the evidence in the
adequacy report and abandoned the recommendations of the model
curriculum without reasonable explanation; and it adopted a
final rule whose terms have almost nothing to do with an
``adequate'' CMV training program.'' The Committee is concerned
that 15 years has elapsed without the issuance of a
comprehensive entry-level driver training standard. The
Committee is disappointed that FMCSA has yet to reissue its
driver training rule and expects the agency to carefully
consider the obvious benefits of a comprehensive training
requirement that includes on-street, behind-the-wheel skills
training for entry-level truck drivers.
Motor coach accessibility.--Last year, the Committee
expressed concern over reports that a number of curbside motor
coach operators were not in compliance with the Department's
regulations requiring accessibility to over-the-road buses for
people with disabilities (49 CFR part 37, Subpart H). The
Committee is still not convinced that the FMCSA lacks the
authority to withhold interstate registration for any motor
coach operator that willfully ignores the FMCSA's own
regulations in this regard. The Committee does not seek to
diminish the FMCSA's primary mission which is safety
enforcement of commercial motor vehicles. However, in the
agency's normal course of oversight, the Committee believes
that FMCSA should incorporate compliance with accessibility
regulations. The Committee understands that the Department of
Justice has general enforcement authority for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) but FMCSA
bears a responsibility to enforce its regulations. The
Committee urges the Secretary to withhold interstate
registration from motor coach operators that are not willing
and able to comply with the department's regulations on
providing access for the disabled. The Committee also restates
its direction from last year that the Secretary of
Transportation provide a letter report by February 15, 2008 to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that details
the specific actions Department will to take to improve
accessibility for the disabled.
Outreach and education.--The Committee recommendation
provides $2,500,000 for FMCSA's outreach and education programs
which represents a decrease of $1,500,000 below the fiscal year
2007 enacted level and the level requested in the budget. The
Committee notes that the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance grants
and the high priority grants can supplement the agency's public
awareness and outreach efforts. The Committee also continues
bill language that prohibits any funds relating to outreach and
education from being transferred to another agency.
CMV operating grants.--The Committee recommendation
provides $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle operator's
grants which is equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
the budget request. The grants, as required by Section 4134 of
SAFETEA-LU, are designed to help train operators of commercial
motor vehicles in the safe use of such vehicles.
U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.--Section
6901 of Public Law 110-28 established conditions and reporting
requirements that the Department must meet prior to the
initiation of its pilot program on cross-border trucking
between the United States and Mexico. The Committee understands
that the Secretary has appointed an independent review board to
review the data of any pilot and assess the safety impacts of
allowing Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate on U.S.
roads and highways. The Committee expects that the independent
review board will function autonomously and have unfettered
access to data on the pilot. In that regard, the Committee
directs the Secretary to provide adequate resources for the
board's review activities. The Committee remains greatly
concerned about the safety implications of the cross-border
pilot and will carefully monitor its implementation.
Motor carrier safety goals.--The Committee notes that over
the last eight years since the creation of FMCSA, the
Department of Transportation has modified its motor carrier
safety goals on three occasions. For example, in 1999, DOT
announced it would pursue a fifty percent reduction in the
number of large truck carrier fatalities in ten years (by the
end of 2008). A few years later, FMCSA's safety goals were
changed from a goal that measured the overall number of motor
carrier-related fatalities to a goal that was measured by
comparing the number of fatalities per 100 million truck miles
traveled (MTMT). This performance measure resulted in a large
truck fatality rate of 2.3 deaths per 100 MTMT which fell far
short in meeting FMCSA's own stated goal of 1.65 fatalities per
100 MTMT. The Committee is concerned that FMCSA has now
introduced a new performance measure which portrays the grim
fatality rate in a more appealing light. This year, FMCSA set a
new goal of decreasing the fatality rate by 2011 by comparing
commercial motor vehicle crash fatalities against all motor
vehicle miles traveled in a given year; this denominator
includes truck, bus, motorcoach, passenger vehicles and even
motorcycle mileage. Since crashes with large trucks constitute
nearly 13 percent of the total number of motor vehicle
fatalities each year, the Committee believes that FMCSA must
set aggressive safety goals that strive to not only improve the
fatality rate but also reduce the overall number of motor
carrier related fatalities. Since DOT first announced its goal
of reducing large truck carrier related fatalities, the total
number of deaths has been above 5,000 every year except one
(2002). The Committee expects FMCSA to establish a rigorous
safety goal and to develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve
their goal of reducing the actual number of fatalities.
Unobligated balances.--The Committee includes bill language
that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under
this heading that will not be available for obligation because
of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in
previous acts.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... -32,187,720
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -32,187,720
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -32,187,720
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee includes bill language that rescinds
unobligated contract authority authorized for the old ``Motor
Carrier Safety'' account that will not be available for
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on
those funds in previous acts.
NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... -5,212,858
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -5,212,858
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -5,212,858
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee includes bill language that rescinds
unobligated contract authority authorized for the old
``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' account that will not
be available for obligation because of limitations on
obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting
funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of
section 350 of Public Law 107-87 and section 6901 of Public Law
110-28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a
report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
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 (U.S.C.)); (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, U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; 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, U.S.C.) to be
carried out by the states and for highway safety research,
development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title
23, U.S.C.). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section
410 of title 23, U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement
and enforce drunk driving prevention programs.
MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities and
odometer regulations. Amendments to this law established the
responsibility for the administration of mandatory automotive
fuel economy standards, theft prevention standards for high
theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content
labeling requirements.
In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included numerous new motor
vehicle safety and information provisions, including a
requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety
recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries involving
motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are
identical or substantially similar to vehicles or equipment in
the United States; higher civil penalties for violations of the
law; a criminal penalty for violations of reporting
requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that
include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty
vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards,
improving the safety of child restraints, and establishing a
child restraint safety rating consumer information program.
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. These
include highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23,
U.S.C.), highway safety research and development (section 403
of title 23, U.S.C.), occupant protection incentive grants
(section 405 of title 23, U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures incentive grants (section 410 of title 23,
U.S.C.), and the national driver register (chapter 303 of title
49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA-LU also enacted new initiatives, such as
the high visibility enforcement program (section 2009 of
SAFETEA-LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of
SAFETEA-LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety
incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU). Finally,
SAFETEA-LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and
information provisions, including rulemaking directions to
reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial
ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor
vehicle occupant protection in side impact crashes.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $836,000,000 for NHTSA to maintain
current programs and continue its mission to save lives,
prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
2007 enacted 2008 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $228,982,430 $229,750,000 $232,750,000
National driver register..................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Highway traffic safety grants................................ 587,750,000 599,250,000 599,250,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 820,732,430 833,000,000 836,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation is $3,000,000 above the
budget request and fully funds the highway safety programs
included within the highway category funding guarantees
continued by SAFETEA-LU.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Highway trust
(General fund) fund) Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 \1\.......................... - - - $232,982,430 $232,982,430
Budget request, fiscal year 2008............................. - - - 233,750,000 233,750,000
Recommended in the bill...................................... 125,000,000 111,750,000 236,750,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.......................... +125,000,000 -121,232,430 +3,767,570
Budget request, fiscal year 2008......................... +125,000,000 -122,000,000 +3,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of funds from FHWA.
The operations and research appropriations support
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
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
For fiscal year 2008, NHTSA requested a total of
$233,750,000 for operations and research activities to be
funded entirely using contract authority from the highway trust
fund. This is contrary to current law. Under NHTSA's proposal,
SAFETEA-LU would be modified to provide additional contract
authority in place of the current general fund authorization.
This funding would then be allocated from two different
accounts. First, NHTSA requested $229,750,000 of contract
authority from the highway trust fund to finance operations and
research activities under section 403 of title 23, U.S.C., as
well as to carry out the provisions of section 301 of title 49,
U.S.C. and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C. Under
SAFETEA-LU, only section 403 of title 23, U.S.C. is authorized
with contract authority out of the highway trust fund. This
funding is also included within the budgetary firewall
guarantee for highway spending. Second, the budget included
$4,000,000 for the national driver register, which is
authorized by SAFETEA-LU with contract authority from the
highway trust fund and is included within the highway
guarantee.
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$236,750,000, less than a two percent increase above fiscal
year 2007. Of this total, $125,000,000 is for operations and
research from the general fund; $107,750,000 is for section 403
of title 23, U.S.C., activities from the highway trust fund;
and $4,000,000 is for the national driver register from the
highway trust fund. The funding shall be distributed as
follows:
Salaries and benefits................................. $79,177,000
Travel................................................ 1,394,000
Operating expenses.................................... 23,481,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance (rulemaking)................... 12,768,000
Safety assurance (enforcement).................... 18,277,000
Highway traffic safety programs................... 50,396,000
Research and analysis............................. 68,834,000
General administration............................ 673,000
Grant administration reimbursements................... -18,250,000
-----------------
Total............................................. 236,750,000
Highlights of and adjustments made to the budget request by
the Committee's recommendation are described in the following
paragraphs.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $104,052,000 for salaries and
benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA,
which is $1,500,000 above the budget request. This funding
level is sufficient to fund 542 full-time equivalent staff
years (FTE), the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
12 FTE above the budget request.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)
NHTSA's safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs
support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety
standards for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment;
automotive fuel economy standards required by the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle
standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety,
including the new car assessment program. Consistent with the
budget request, the Committee provides $12,768,000 for these
activities.
New car assessment program (NCAP).--Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $7,893,000 for NCAP.
Safety-related rulemaking.--SAFETEA-LU required NHTSA to
issue or upgrade a number of important motor vehicle safety
standards that included rollover prevention, ejection
prevention, door locks, roof strength, and side impact
protection. While the agency has expressed a commitment to
issue these rules in a timely fashion, the Committee is
concerned that NHTSA is taking a one-dimensional approach to
developing the requirements for each rule whereas most real-
world crashes involve a combination of a these issues. For
example, a rollover crash often also involves roof crush, door
lock strength, and occupant ejection. For this reason, it is
imperative that NHTSA not deal with each issue separately but
instead takes a comprehensive, systems engineering approach
that integrates all aspects of real-world crashes when issuing
these standards for motor vehicles, including large passenger-
carrying motor vehicles, such as motorcoaches and school buses.
The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2008, that
explains, for each of the safety rulemakings it must issue in
response to SAFETEA-LU, how the agency has taken into account
or is addressing the inter-related nature of real-world crashes
that involve two or more of the safety standards the agency is
required to issue or upgrade under SAFETEA-LU. In preparing
this report, NHTSA should also evaluate the need for adopting
safety standards for large passenger-carrying motor vehicles to
prevent rollover crashes, as well as enhance passenger
protection in all types of crashes to prevent severe injuries
and deaths from collapsing roofs and passenger ejection from
their seats and through motorcoach side windows.
SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)
The Committee recommends $18,277,000, as requested, for
safety assurance (enforcement) programs to provide support to
ensure compliance with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel
economy standards, investigate safety-related motor vehicle
defects, enforce federal odometer law, encourage enforcement of
state odometer law, and conduct safety recalls when warranted.
The Committee expects NHTSA to use these funds as reflected in
its budget justification.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical
assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs
conducted by state and local governments, the private sector,
universities, research units, and various safety associations
and organizations. These 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 evaluation,
motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil
transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and
development of improved accident investigation procedures. The
Committee recommends $50,396,000 for these programs.
Highway fatality rate goals.--Motor vehicle crashes are the
leading cause of death for all Americans ages 3 to 33 and
Congress has provided increased levels of highway safety
funding over the last several years to address this tragic
statistic. Although the rate of highway fatalities decreased
significantly over the last 20 years, 2005 marked the first
increase in the highway fatality rate since 1986, with alcohol-
impaired driving accounting for a significant portion of the
total fatalities. In 2005, 43,443 people died in motor vehicle
crashes representing the highest number of fatalities since
1990. Motorcycle deaths increased for the eighth year in a row
to 4,553, an increase of 115 percent since 1997. There also
were increases in deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists and
rollover deaths are now at a record high of 10,816 fatalities.
Unfortunately, the Committee believes that NHTSA is not making
adequate progress in addressing this public health crisis and
should not be complacent and accept the fact that 43,000 lives
a year are lost on the nation's highways.
The Committee is concerned about the fact that NHTSA has
drastically changed or revised critical target goals that were
set just a few years ago and which the agency now admits cannot
be achieved. For instance, in the fiscal year 2008 budget,
NHSTA sets a totally new method for measuring motorcycle
fatality rate, using 1,000 vehicle registrations instead of 100
million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). NHTSA has also raised
the overall highway fatality rate goal for fiscal year 2008
from 1.0 to 1.37, acknowledging that it will not achieve this
goal by 2008 as was originally planned, and has pushed back its
target of achieving a 1.0 fatality rate per 100 MVMT to 2011.
The actual fatality rate for 2005 is 1.45.
The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008,
that describes what efforts the agency will undertake to make a
serious reduction in highway fatalities. The report should
describe why the agency failed to achieve its original target
goal for 2008 of 1.0 fatalities, as well as specific
recommendations focused on reducing motorcyclist fatalities.
NHTSA also needs to explain the rationale behind changing these
methods for measuring fatality rates.
Impaired driving.--The Committee remains greatly concerned
about the high number of alcohol-related fatalities that occur
each year. In 2005, 17,525 individuals were killed in alcohol-
related crashes and, based on partial year data for 2006,
alcohol-related fatalities are projected to increase two
percent to the highest level killed since 1992. The Committee
continues to believe that a combination of tough laws,
aggressive enforcement, increased deployment of interlock
technologies and continuation of the national media campaign
will save lives. In this regard, the Committee supports NHTSA's
active leadership in the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving
which has brought together law enforcement, policymakers, MADD,
auto manufacturers and responsible distilled spirits companies
with the goal to eliminate alcohol impaired driving. The
Committee encourages NHTSA's involvement in the development of
vehicle-based technologies, as supported under the Campaign,
which will accurately detect if a driver is impaired and
prevent that driver from operating the vehicle. The Committee
expects NHTSA to provide periodic updates to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding NHTSA's efforts
to reduce the number of alcohol-related fatalities.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
The Committee recommends $68,834,000, which is $1,500,000
above the request, for research and analysis activities to
provide motor vehicle safety research and development in
support of all NHTSA programs, including the collection and
analysis of crash data to identify safety problems, develop
alternative solutions, and assess costs, benefits, and
effectiveness. Research will continue to concentrate on
improving vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance, with
emphasis on increasing safety belt use, decreasing alcohol
involvement in crashes, decreasing the number of rollover
crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, and
improved data systems.
Fatality analysis reporting system (FARS).--The Committee
includes $7,922,000 for FARS, an increase of $750,000 above the
budget request in order to improve the quality of the data
collected by FARS. NHTSA is directed to utilize this increase
to conduct quality control workshops and to establish quality
control procedures to improve the reporting of restraint usage,
blood alcohol concentration levels, fires, rollovers and other
important data.
National automotive sampling system (NASS).--The NASS
general estimates system data identifies trends of vehicle
crashes and the NASS crashworthiness data system provides more
in-depth and descriptive data in order to quantify the
relationships between the occupants and vehicles in the real-
world crash environment. NASS was originally designed to have
75 crash investigation teams collect in-depth information on
about 19,000 crashes each year. The Committee is concerned
about the relatively low number of crash teams, 24, and cases
being collected, about 4,800 annually, and therefore provides
$12,980,000, an increase of $750,000 above the budget request,
in order to increase the number of cases where data are
collected.
National motor vehicle crash causation survey (NMVCCS).--
The Committee provides $7,000,000 for the NMVCCS, as requested.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
The Committee recommends $673,000, as requested, for the
general administration account to provide program evaluation,
strategic planning, and economic analysis for agency programs.
Objective quantitative information about NHTSA's regulatory and
highway safety programs is gathered to measure their
effectiveness in achieving objectives. This activity also funds
development of methods to estimate economic consequences of
motor vehicle injuries in forms suitable for agency use in
problem identification, regulatory analysis, priority setting,
and policy analysis.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... $125,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +125,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +125,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $125,000,000 for
operations and research funding as an appropriation from the
general fund.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007... $228,982,430 \1\ ($228,982,430
)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.. 229,750,000 (229,750,000)
Recommended in the bill........... 107,750,000 (107,750,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year -121,232,430 (-121,232,430)
2007.........................
Budget request, fiscal year -122,000,000 (-122,000,000)
2008.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes transfer of funds from FHWA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $107,750,000 for payment on
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of the
operations and research program. The Committee's recommendation
is consistent with the amount of contract authority provided
under SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the
highway trust fund to $107,750,000 for authorized activities
associated with operations and research.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....... $4,000,000 ($4,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...... 4,000,000 (4,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 4,000,000 (4,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007... - - - (- - -)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.. - - - (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This account provides funding to implement and operate the
national driver register's problem driver pointer system 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
The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation
of $4,000,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations
incurred in carrying out the national driver register program.
The Committee's recommendation is consistent with the amount of
contract authority provided under SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the
highway trust fund to $4,000,000 for operations and research
activities associated with the national driver register, of
which $2,870,000 is for program activities and $1,130,000 is
for salaries and benefits.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....... $587,750,000 ($587,750,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...... 599,250,000 (599,250,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 599,250,000 (599,250,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007... +11,500,000 (+11,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.. - - - (- - -)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETEA-LU reauthorized three state grant programs: highway
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and
authorized five additional state grant 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $599,250,000 in liquidating cash
from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations
of the various highway safety grant programs at the levels
provided in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. The
Committee's recommendation is consistent with the amount of
contract authority provided for highway traffic safety grant
programs under SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee continues language limiting the obligations
to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants
programs. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided
limitations on obligations at the level prescribed in SAFETEA-
LU, with separate obligation limitations for the following
funding allocations:
Highway safety programs................................. ($225,000,000)
Occupant protection incentive grants.................... (25,000,000)
Safety belt performance grants.......................... (124,500,000)
State traffic safety information systems improvements... (34,500,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grants.............................................. (131,000,000)
High visibility enforcement program..................... (29,000,000)
Motorcyclist safety..................................... (6,000,000)
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive
grants.............................................. (6,000,000)
Bill language.--The bill maintains language that prohibits
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and
remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for
state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is
also continued that limits the amount available for technical
assistance to $500,000 under section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.
The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount that
can be used to conduct the evaluation of the high visibility
enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2008.
Highway safety grants.--SAFETEA-LU reauthorized the state
and community highway safety formula grant program under
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to support state highway
safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and
resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A state may
use these grants only for highway safety purposes and at least
40 percent of these funds are to be expended by political
subdivisions of the state.
Occupant protection incentive grants.--SAFETEA-LU amended
section 405(a) of chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage
states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce
deaths and injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly
restrained in motor vehicles. A state may use these grant funds
only to implement and enforce occupant protection programs.
Safety belt performance grants.--SAFETEA-LU established a
new program of incentive grants under section 406 of title 23,
U.S.C., to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws
requiring the use of safety belts in passenger motor vehicles.
To date, a total of nine states have passed primary seat belt
laws in response to this incentive program. A state may use
these grant funds for any safety purpose under title 23,
U.S.C., or for any project that corrects or improves a
hazardous roadway location or feature or proactively addresses
highway safety problems. However, at least $1,000,000 of
amounts received by states must be obligated for behavioral
highway safety activities.
State traffic safety information systems improvements.--
SAFETEA-LU established a new program of incentive grants under
section 408 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt
and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness,
accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and
accessibility of state data that is needed to identify
priorities for national, state, and local highway and traffic
safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to
make such improvements; to link these state data systems,
including traffic records, with other data systems within the
state; and to improve the compatibility of the state data
system with national data systems and data systems of other
states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze national
trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
circumstances. A state may use these grant funds only to
implement such data improvement programs.
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive
grants.--SAFETEA-LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving
countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section
410 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt and
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems
resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of
alcohol. A state may use these grant funds to implement the
impaired driving activities described in the programmatic
criteria, as well as costs for high visibility enforcement; the
costs of training and equipment for law enforcement; the costs
of advertising and educational campaigns that publicize
checkpoints, increase law enforcement efforts and target
impaired drivers under 34 years of age; the costs of a state
impaired operator information system, and the costs of vehicle
or license plate impoundment.
High visibility enforcement program.--Section 2009 of
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. These funds may be used to pay for
the development, production, and use of broadcast and print
media in carrying out traffic safety law enforcement campaigns.
The Committee continues to believe that the high visibility
enforcement program has been effective in encouraging seat belt
use and in discouraging impaired driving. The Committee directs
NHTSA to continue to provide updates to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the agency's paid media
strategy and its implementation.
Motorcyclist safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU
established a new program of incentive grants to encourage
states to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the
number of single and multi-vehicle crashes involving
motorcyclists. A state may use these grants funds only for
motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness
programs, including improvement of training curricula, delivery
of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety
instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs.
Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive
grants.--Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive
grant program to make grants available to states that are
enforcing a law requiring any child riding in a passenger
vehicle who is too large to be secured in a child safety seat
to be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements
prescribed under section 3 of Anton's Law (49 U.S.C. 30127
note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants may be used only for child
safety seat and child restraint programs.
The Committee is disappointed that NHTSA failed to
determine state eligibility in a timely fashion and, as a
result, awarded less than half of the authorized funds for this
program in fiscal year 2006. The Committee encourages NHTSA to
work aggressively to award available Section 2011 funds to all
qualified states.
Safe transport of Head Start children.--The Committee
understands that NHTSA provided input into the regulations
developed by the Department of Health and Human Services
regarding the safe transportation of Head Start children. Since
the issuance of the final regulations, some Head Start grantees
have reported that their transportation costs have consumed as
much as 20 percent of the Head Start budget. The Committee
believes that the safe transport of these children is
paramount. The Committee once again directs the Secretary of
Transportation to work with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to identify strategies to ensure the safe transport of
children participating in a Head Start program. In addition,
the Committee encourages NHTSA to explore the use of the child
safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants as a
means of assistance for the transportation of Head Start
children.
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.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that
provides funding for travel and related expenses for state
management reviews and highway safety core competency
development training.
Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the
highway trust fund for NHTSA's operation and research
activities that will not be available for obligation because of
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous
acts.
Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for the
national driver register that will not be available for
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on
those funds in previous acts.
Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the
highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway safety grant programs
that will not be available for obligation because of
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous
acts.
Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry, as well as managing the high-speed ground
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance
programs serving to rehabilitate and improve the railroad
industry's physical plant are also administered by FRA.
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $150,271,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 148,472,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 148,472,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -1,799,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The safety and operations account provides support for
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities.
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating
costs related to FRA staff and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
A total of $148,472,000 is recommended for safety and
operations, which is a $1,799,000 decrease below the fiscal
year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request. Of
this amount, $12,268,890 is available until expended. The
following adjustments have been made to the budget request:
Reduce funding for NDGPS staff.......................... -$163,000
Increase funding for regulatory studies................. +163,000
NDGPS staff reduction.--The Committee understands that the
administration of the Nationwide Differential Global
Positioning System (NDGPS) program has been transferred to the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The
Committee decreases the FRA's safety and operations account by
$163,000 to reflect the reduction in the one full-time
equivalent employee dedicated to the NDGPS program.
Regulatory studies.--The Committee disagrees with the FRA's
proposed reductions to the agency's regulatory studies program.
As the FRA continues to implement its National Rail Safety
Action Plan, the Committee notes that the FRA plans to update
and issue a number of safety rules. For example, FRA is
completing a research effort which will be used to develop new
federal design standards for hazardous materials tank cars and
the agency is developing a proposed rule to facilitate the
installation of electronically-controlled pneumatic brake
systems that improve train control. The Committee provides an
increase of $163,000 to supplement the FRA's regulatory study
efforts.
Close call confidential reporting pilot program.--The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 as requested in
the budget for the Close Call Confidential Reporting Pilot
Program. This pilot is intended to provide an avenue for
railroad employees to voluntarily and anonymously report
``close call'' incidents that could have resulted in an
accident without fear of sanction or penalty from their
employer or the federal government. The FRA intends to conduct
this pilot at three sites in fiscal year 2008 and the request
includes $1,200,000 for program implementation; $600,000 for
program evaluation; and $200,000 for data collection. The
Committee intends to monitor this pilot program closely to
ensure that FRA's traditional safety oversight and enforcement
efforts are not compromised or diminished.
Annualization of safety positions.--The Committee provides
$889,000, as requested in the budget, to annualize the twelve
new safety positions that were provided in fiscal year 2007.
RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $34,524,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 32,250,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 33,250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -1,274,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +1,000,000
The railroad research and development appropriation
provides science and technology support for FRA's rail safety
rulemaking and enforcement efforts. The objective of this
program is to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad
accidents and to provide technical support for rail safety
rulemaking and enforcement activities. It also stimulates
technological advances in conventional and high speed
railroads.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,250,000,
for railroad research and development which is $1,274,000 below
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the
budget request. The Committee recommendation includes the
following allocation for FRA's research programs:
Railroad system issues.................................. $3,168,000
Human factors........................................... 3,616,000
Rolling stock and components............................ 2,871,000
Track and structures.................................... 3,861,000
Track and train interaction............................. 3,168,000
Train control........................................... 6,100,000
Grade crossings......................................... 2,178,000
Hazmat transportation................................... 1,287,000
Train occupant protection............................... 5,120,000
R&D facilities and test equipment....................... 1,881,000
Train control.--The Committee recommendation includes
$6,100,000 for the FRA's train control program which is
$1,800,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
$1,000,000 above the budget request. The National
Transportation Safety Board has had the implementation of
positive train control (PTC) on its ``Most Wanted List'' since
1990. While there has been some measured progress in the
development and implementation of PTC systems, the Committee
notes that it could take several years before all rail lines
are equipped with train control systems that can prevent train
collisions. The Committee provides an increase above the budget
request to enable the FRA to initiate a research effort to
develop and demonstrate a lower cost train control system that
can reduce or eliminate the possibility of train collisions on
tracks not equipped with full PTC. In addition, the Committee
encourages the FRA to initiate a research effort to assure that
train control communications are not available to be interfered
with or monitored by unauthorized persons.
Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high
speed rail corridors.--The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users
(SAFETEA-LU) reauthorized the railway-highway crossing hazard
elimination in high speed rail corridors program under section
104(d) of title 23, United States Code. In fiscal year 2008,
SAFETEA-LU authorizes $12,500,000 for this program of which
$2,250,000 was designated for a specific project within
SAFETEA-LU. A limited number of corridors are eligible for
these funds.
The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the
following projects:
Leucadia boulevard, at-grade safety improvements, CA.... $500,000
Quiet zone at Union Pacific grade crossings, Round Rock,
TX.................................................. 500,000
Ventura county, Metrolink grade crossing improvements,
CA.................................................. 500,000
Gulf coast corridor grade crossing hazard elimination,
MS and LA........................................... 500,000
Grade crossing hazard elimination, Glendale, CA......... 500,000
Southern California regional rail authority, San
Fernando Valley, CA................................. 1,000,000
Hopson road grade separation, Raleigh, NC............... 500,000
Klumac road grade crossing separation, Salisbury, NC.... 300,000
Private crossing safety initiative, NC.................. 275,000
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Public Law 105-178 established the Railroad Rehabilitation
and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan and loan guarantee
program. SAFETEA-LU amended the program to allow direct loan
and loan guarantees up to $35,000,000,000 and required that not
less than $1,000,000,000 shall be reserved for projects
primarily benefiting freight railroads other than class I
carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or
rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities,
including track, components of track, bridges, yards,
buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to
develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. No
Federal appropriation is required, since a non-Federal
infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a
credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals
and necessary determinations and findings. The budget request
proposed to limit direct loan obligations to $700,000,000 and
indicated that the Administration intends to send up
legislation to reform the RRIF program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not modify the loan limitations
established for the railroad rehabilitation and improvement
program, as proposed by the President's budget. 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
2008. The Committee understands that the RRIF program has been
utilized to make improvements to a number of smaller railroads.
In that regard, the Committee directs the Secretary to submit a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
March 14, 2008 that summarizes the capital investment needs of
class 2 and 3 railroads and the extent to which such needs are
met by sources other than the federal government.
PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... -9,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +9,000,000
The Committee recommendation does not include the
$9,000,000 rescission requested in the budget due to a lack of
justification.
RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +35,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +35,000,000
Section 9002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(Public Law 109-59) amends chapter 201 of title 49 of the
United States Code to authorize funds for the purpose of
funding a grant program to provide financial assistance for
local rail line relocation and improvement projects. In order
for a State to be eligible for a grant, the project must
mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor
vehicle flow, community quality of life, including noise
mitigation or economic development.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Rail lines that intersect communities across the country
are often safety hazards and impediments to economic
development. In addition, these rail lines can exacerbate
congestion at highway-railroad grade crossings which, in turn,
can contribute to increased levels of emissions of air
pollutants by idling cars. Since the majority of our nation's
rail system was built nearly a century ago, it is often the
case that the communities were built around the rail lines. As
a result, the financial burden often falls to the State and
local government if a community seeks to relocate a rail line
in order to facilitate commerce or to address a safety concern.
The Committee notes that the FRA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking for the rail line relocation program in January,
2007, and the agency expects to publish a final rule on the
program by the end of the year. The Committee recommendation
includes $35,000,000 for the rail line relocation and
improvement program.
The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the
following projects:
Mt. Vernon railroad cut, NY............................. $250,000
Peco Street grade crossing, Adams County, CO............ 200,000
Pierre rail improvements, Pierre, SD.................... 200,000
Rail safety upgrades, Coos County, NH................... 400,000
Rail line relocation, Chester, SC....................... 400,000
Railroad grade separation, Elkhart, IN.................. 450,000
Railroad relocation planning, Terre Haute, IN........... 450,000
Sacramento intermodal terminal facility track
relocation, CA...................................... 400,000
Wisconsin west rail transit authority, Barron, WI....... 2,500,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(AMTRAK)
The National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was
created by the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91-518) in 1970
to preserve intercity passenger rail in the United States. At
the time of Amtrak's creation, private rail companies, which
provided both freight and passenger rail, had been running
large deficits on their passenger routes for many years and
wanted to shed this unprofitable part of the business. Amtrak
was established as a non-governmental corporation and began
passenger rail operations on May 1, 1971.
Amtrak currently serves more than 500 destinations in 46
states over 21,000 miles of track which is largely owned by the
freight railroads. Amtrak owns about 625 miles of track, over
half of which is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from
Washington, DC to Boston. Much like their passenger rail
counterparts in the rest of the world, Amtrak has not been able
to make a profit. Unlike their counterparts in Europe and
Japan, Amtrak has suffered from a lack of national investment
in rail infrastructure, including dedicated high speed rail
lines and other infrastructure improvements.
STATUS OF AMTRAK
Industrialized countries around the world have long
recognized the importance of intercity rail to a balanced
transportation program. The Committee believes investments in
intercity passenger rail, especially in high density travel
corridors, should be considered an integral part of our
nation's transportation policy. As stated in the beginning of
this report, the United States is undergoing dramatic
demographic changes that will make rail a more attractive
travel alternative in a number of high density corridors that
are between 100 and 500 miles in length. The challenges created
by demographic shifts and population growth--congested highways
and airspace, increased travel delays, and environmental
degradation--could be mitigated by investments in rail. Amtrak,
along with the federal and state government, will be important
partners in the rejuvenation of the nation's intercity rail
system.
In addition, the environmental benefits of rail are
frequently overlooked. The 2006 Oakridge National Laboratory's
Transportation Energy book, published under the purview of the
Department of Energy, reported Amtrak consumed 18 percent less
energy per passenger mile than commercial aviation and 17
percent less than automobiles, which, in turn, lowers the
production of greenhouse gases.
The last authorization for Amtrak expired in 2002. In the
absence of a new authorization, the Committee has continued
bill language requiring Amtrak to undertake operational and
management reforms to achieve greater efficiency. Additionally,
the Committee continuies the requirement that Amtrak prepare an
annual comprehensive business plan and submit monthly reports
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the
execution of that business plan. Should an authorization bill
for Amtrak become enacted into law, the Committee will evaluate
the need to further modify the bill language as the
appropriations process moves forward. The Committee, however,
is encouraged by the progress that Amtrak has made on a number
of fronts as a result of these reforms.
Operational savings.--Amtrak has made noteworthy strides in
restoring fiscal discipline to the railroad's operations. For
example, in fiscal year 2006, Amtrak achieved $61,300,000 in
operational savings. To date, Amtrak has achieved $39,000,000
of the $61,000,000 in operational savings that the railroad
committed to achieve in fiscal year 2007. Amtrak has also set a
goal to achieve $82,000,000 in savings in fiscal year 2008. The
majority of these savings will come from continued reductions
in food and beverage service costs, improving the net operating
performance of long distance trains, increasing revenues and
other strategic reform initiatives. The Committee urges Amtrak
to continue to make every effort to achieve operational savings
that improve the railroad's efficiency without compromising its
commitment to safety and service.
Reduced debt.--Since fiscal year 2002, Amtrak has reduced
its corporate debt by $500,000,000 and has not assumed any new
debt for four years in a row. However, despite this progress,
Amtrak continues to carry nearly $4,000,000,000 in debt that
resulted from the years when Amtrak took on large amounts of
private debt financing in order to meet basic system needs.
Record level ridership and revenues.--The Committee also
notes that Amtrak experienced record ridership in fiscal year
2006, serving 24.3 million passengers and increased revenues to
$1,371,000,000, 10.7 percent higher than the previous year.
Amtrak's financial performance led to a slight reduction in the
amount requested for operating subsidies.
Growing state commitment to rail passenger service.--Amtrak
has also witnessed a significant increase in the resources that
States across the nation are willing to commit toward rail
passenger service. State investments in capital and operational
improvements have grown from $148,300,000 to $254,800,000 or by
72 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2006.
The Committee applauds these positive developments,
however, there is sufficient room for improvement. The
Committee is greatly concerned about Amtrak's on-time
performance on its routes that operate over freight-owned rail
lines. While the Acela service on the Northeast Corridor
enjoyed an 85 percent on-time performance (which also needs
improvement), system-wide on-time performance was only 68
percent. If Amtrak is unable to provide predictable and
reliable service on its long distance and corridor routes
including the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak will constantly
struggle to attract and retain riders. The Committee expects
the freight railroads which host Amtrak passenger trains to
cooperate with Amtrak to improve on-time performance.
In addition, while Amtrak has been able to make some
headway on its backlog of state-of-good repair work, a
significant portion of the railroad's rolling stock ranges in
age from 25 to 50 years old and is fast approaching the end of
its useful life. The Committee believes that Amtrak must
continue to make progress in replacing its aging equipment.
Amtrak also has much work to do to ensure that its stations and
facilities are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The Committee acknowledges that the Federal Railroad
Administration has not yet promulgated final rules on station
platform accessibility requirements which will clearly impact
the improvements that Amtrak will need to undertake.
Finally, Amtrak's labor workforce, representing nearly
16,000 employees, has been without a bargaining agreement for
nearly eight years and as a result, most of Amtrak's employees
have not seen an increase in wages other than an annual one
percent cost of living adjustment. As a consequence, Amtrak's
wages, in many cases, are well below market and many of the
Amtrak's skilled workforce are compensated as much as 20
percent below the levels paid for comparable jobs on the
freight railroads. This has an impact on Amtrak's ability to
preserve an experienced and skilled labor workforce. The
Committee is dismayed that Amtrak may implement premium pay
plans that include a 10 percent increase in salary for
management, while at the same time most of Amtrak's employees
have been without a labor agreement and meaningful cost of
living adjustments for eights years. While the Committee is
encouraged that Amtrak's management acknowledges the important
role that the men and women of Amtrak's workforce play in the
railroad's success, the Committee is frustrated that little
progress has been made in the railroad's current labor
negotiation process which can hardly be characterized as good
faith bargaining. The Committee expects both management and
labor to work diligently toward an equitable and fair
resolution.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The combination of continued reform and investment in
infrastructure will improve the future viability of Amtrak.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 in total
funding for Amtrak in fiscal year 2008 which is $106,450,000
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $600,000,000 above
the budget request. The Committee provides Amtrak's funding for
operating grants and capital and debt service grants. The
Committee continues many reporting and grant making provisions
contained in prior appropriations Acts.
OPERATING GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $490,050,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 475,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -15,050,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +475,000,000
The Committee recommends $475,000,000 for operating grants
for Amtrak which is $15,050,000 below the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and $475,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee is pleased that Amtrak has improved its financial
performance which resulted in a considerable cash balance at
the beginning of the last two fiscal years.
The Committee understands that Amtrak provides a daily cash
balance report to FRA and a monthly report that measures
Amtrak's actual revenues compared to the railroad's projected
revenues. The Committee expects FRA to carefully monitor
Amtrak's revenues and cash balances. The Committee directs FRA
to immediately notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations if, at any time, Amtrak's projected cash balance
falls below an acceptable level.
Since fiscal year 2006, the Committee has urged Amtrak to
institute reforms to its food and beverage operations as well
as its sleeper car service. The Committee understands that the
food and beverage reforms are expected to yield nearly
$19,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. However, the strategic
initiative to improve the operating performance of the sleeper
car service has been suspended. The Committee hopes that Amtrak
will redouble its efforts in this area and urges Amtrak to
continue to explore opportunities to achieve savings in the
sleeper service with the eventual goal of subsidy elimination.
In that regard, the Committee continues bill language directing
the Inspector General to monitor Amtrak's operational reform
efforts and to report quarterly to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
In an ongoing effort to increase sustainable business
practices, Amtrak is directed to report back to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment
on current recycling efforts and the Corporation's plans to
improve recycling throughout its operations.
In order to ensure adequate oversight of Amtrak's business
practices, the Committee includes bill language providing
$18,500,000 for Amtrak's office of Inspector General.
CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $772,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 500,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 925,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +152,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +425,000,000
The Committee notes that the authors of the original Rail
Passenger Service Act which created Amtrak in 1970, envisioned
significant federal capital investments in high speed rail
lines as well as other rail service improvements. The Committee
believes that sustained investment in rail infrastructure is
critical to the long-term viability of intercity passenger rail
service.
Amtrak has invested $1,360,000,000 in the Northeast
Corridor since fiscal year 2003 and has replaced aging bridges,
upgraded signal equipment, renewed catenary, and improved
tunnels and track. Increased capital investments will increase
capacity and on-time performance, reduce trip time, lower
maintenance costs, and move the rail system toward a state of
good repair.
Accordingly, the Committee provides $925,000,000 for
capital grants, of which $285,000,000 is provided for Amtrak's
debt service. The Committee recommendation is $152,800,000
above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $425,000,000 above
the budget request. The Committee believes that the capital
grants are essential if Amtrak is to continue improving its
rail service and help move the system toward a state-of-good
repair. The Committee recommendation sets aside $35,000,000
within the capital program to be made available for additional
capital improvements if Amtrak demonstrates to the Secretary's
satisfaction that the railroad is meeting operational
efficiency, revenue and ridership targets. The bill permits FRA
to retain up to one-quarter of one percent for the oversight of
Amtrak's capital grants. In addition, the bill continues
requirements that no capital funds may be used to subsidize
operating losses or may be used for capital projects not on
Amtrak's business plan. The bill also sets aside $5,000,000 for
the continued development of Amtrak's cost accounting system
and requires the DOT Inspector General to assess the strengths
and weaknesses of the cost accounting system. Additionally, the
bill requires the Secretary to develop a definition of ``state
of good repair'' in consultation with Amtrak and the affected
Northeast Corridor states. The Committee understands that the
Department of Transportation Inspector General plans to
initiate a review of Amtrak's five-year capital plan. The
Committee directs the Inspector General to report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008 the
results of that review and to assess how effectively Amtrak
prioritizes and coordinates its capital investments to
contribute to the overall business goals of the corporation.
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $31,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 300,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -31,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -300,000,000
The Committee notes that a significant portion of the bill
language requested for the efficiency incentive grant program
mirrors language that has already been included within the
Operating Grants portion of the bill. The Committee agrees that
Amtrak must continue to achieve operational savings and
efficiencies. In that regard, the Committee has included bill
language within the Capital and Debt Service Grants that sets
aside $35,000,000 for capital improvements that is to be made
available if the Secretary determines that Amtrak has achieved
operational savings and has met ridership and revenue targets
as defined in Amtrak's fiscal year 2008 business plan.
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... $100,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +50,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -50,000,000
The Committee supports the concept of a Federal-State
intercity passenger rail grant program and provides $50,000,000
as an initial investment. The Committee recommendation is
$50,000,000 below the level requested in the budget. States
along the Northeast Corridor, as well as Illinois, California,
Oregon and Washington and others have already invested in their
intercity rail corridors and improved rail service. The
Committee applauds state investments in passenger rail and
strongly believes that the federal government should be a
partner in this effort just as it is in highway, transit and
airport investments. This program matched dollar for dollar
will leverage as much as $100,000,000 in additional rail
investments. The goal of this program should be to increase the
overall investment in state corridors not necessarily replace
the resources that States are already committing to rail
improvements. The Secretary has made congestion reduction a
priority for the Department of Transportation and the Committee
believes that a state rail corridor program that serves city-
pairs between 100-500 miles with sufficient frequency and
reliability can make a positive contribution to reducing
congestion.
The bill allows States to apply to FRA for up to 50 percent
of the cost of planning and capital investments to support
improved intercity passenger rail service. In addition,
priority for grants will be given to planning and
infrastructure projects that improve safety, reliability and
the on-time performance of intercity passenger trains; reduce
congestion on freight railroads; and, work with the freight
railroads to achieve an on-time performance of at least 80
percent. The States must also commit financial resources to
improve safety at highway-railroad grade crossings and to
projects that protect and enhance the environment, promote
energy conservation and improve quality of life. The bill also
requires that projects must be on the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that
allows FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation
Lifesaver.
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1,
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit
Administration administers federal financial assistance
programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
Authorization for programs under the Federal Transit
Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59). Annual appropriations acts provide
funding by annual limitations on obligations for the formula
and bus grants only. FTA's administrative expenses, research
programs, and capital investment grants are provided through
direct appropriations of budget authority from the General Fund
of the Treasury.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $85,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 89,300,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 92,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +7,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +3,200,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $92,500,000 for FTA's salaries and
expenses, an increase of $7,500,000 above the fiscal year 2007
funding level and $3,200,000 above the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation meets the funding guarantees for
FTA's administrative expenses as required by SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee recommendation follows the funding structure
that was provided in fiscal year 2007. Rather than
appropriating specific amounts for each of the FTA's
programmatic offices, the Committee includes a single
appropriation for the agency's overall operations. The
Committee acknowledges that the FTA is under new leadership and
is satisfied that the agency does not intend to reorganize the
operating functions of the FTA without proper consultation of
the Committee. However, in granting the FTA Administrator
additional flexibility in the allocation of resources, the
Committee expects the Administrator to use this discretion in a
responsible and measured manner. In order to monitor the
distribution of the FTA's administrative expenses, the
Committee directs that the FTA's operating plan include a
specific allocation of administrative expenses resources,
including a delineation of full time equivalent employees, for
the following offices: Office of the Administrator; Office of
Administration; Office of Chief Counsel; Office of
Communications and Congressional Affairs; Office of Program
Management; Office of Budget and Policy; Office of Research,
Demonstration and Innovation; Office of Civil Rights; Office of
Planning and Environment; and Regional Offices. In addition,
the Committee directs the FTA to notify the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations at least thirty days in advance of
any change that results in an increase or decrease of more than
five percent from the initial operating plan submitted to the
Committees for fiscal year 2008. The accompanying bill
specifies that no more than $1,504,000 shall be for the FTA's
travel expenses and that no more than $20,719,000 shall be for
the central account.
The Committee continues the direction to FTA to submit
future budget justifications in a similar format to the fiscal
year 2008 budget materials, consistent with the instruction
provided in House Report 109-153. With the companion new starts
report, FTA has significantly improved the documents and
information submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. The
Committee has again included language requiring FTA to submit
the annual new starts report with the initial submission of the
budget request due in February, 2008.
In addition, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA
to reimburse the Department of Transportation Office of
Inspector General $2,000,000 from funds available for contract
execution for costs associated with audits and investigations
of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed
guideway systems. The Committee directs the Inspector General
to continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 2008.
Transit security.--The Committee reiterates its direction
as stated in House Report 108-671 regarding transit security.
The Committee's position remains that the Department of
Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation
security. As stated on the TSA website: ``All new improvements
will be coordinated with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) which has overall responsibility for
transportation security among all modes of transportation,
including rail and transit lines.'' As such, the Committee
continues bill language prohibiting FTA from creating a
permanent office of transit security.
Project oversight.--The Committee does not include bill
language requested in the budget which would provide a one
percent administrative takedown for the oversight of the Job
Access and Reverse Commute program; the New Freedom program and
National Research projects. Since the Committee provides
sufficient funding to meet the administrative expense
guarantees required under SAFETEA-LU, the Committee believes
that FTA has adequate resources to conduct oversight of these
programs.
Transit oriented development.--The Committee strongly
supports efforts to increase transit oriented development (TOD)
in public transportation corridors throughout the country.
Transit oriented development has the potential to increase the
quality of life for millions of American households by creating
more densely populated livable communities near transit,
recreational parks, and retail centers. The Committee believes
that better access to transit can reduce transportation costs
for working families and help mitigate the harmful effects of
automobile travel on the environment. Despite the benefits of
transit oriented development, the Committee is particularly
concerned about housing affordability in TOD communities. The
Committee believes that the preservation of affordable housing
should become an integral part of transit oriented development
policies.
The Committee commends both the Federal Transit
Administration and Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for jointly sponsoring the recently published study
``Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near
Transit.'' The Committee believes the study provides a number
of valuable recommendations for federal, state, and local
policy makers to promote affordable housing near transit. On
the federal level, the Committee hopes that the cooperation
between FTA and HUD on the study will be the beginning of a new
partnership on transit oriented development. Accordingly, the
Committee includes $1,000,000 within the funds provided for the
FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency working group on
transit oriented development and affordable housing. The new
working group should follow up on recommendations made in the
jointly sponsored HUD and FTA study mentioned above. The
working group should also create an action plan with specific
recommendations on how HUD and the FTA can improve policy
coordination and provide incentives through existing programs
to further promote affordable housing near transit corridors.
The HUD and FTA action plan for mixed income affordable housing
near transit should be submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within six months of enactment.
FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007............... $7,262,775,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 7,871,895,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,872,893,000
Bill compared with:
Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007........... +610,118,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +998,000
Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the
following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant
program, over-the-road bus accessibility program, urbanized
area formula grants, bus and bus facility grants, fixed
guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan
and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities, formula grants
for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute
formula program, new freedom program, growing states and high
density states formula, National Transit Database, alternatives
analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and public
lands. Contract authority from the Mass Transit Account of the
Highway Trust Fund was provided under SAFETEA-LU. This
appropriations Act provides the obligation limitation for such
authority. This account is the only FTA account funded from the
Highway Trust Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The accompanying bill provides $7,872,893,000 in obligation
limitations for transit formula and bus grants as authorized in
SAFETEA-LU. The Committee recommendation represents an increase
of $610,118,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
$998,000 above the budget request. The Committee's
recommendation does include a cancellation of $28,660,920 in
unobligated prior year balances of grant funds. This rescission
will not affect any on-going or planned/authorized project or
grant.
Under the obligation limitation provided, SAFETEA-LU
mandates funding levels for the following programs in fiscal
year 2008:
Clean Fuels Grant Program............................... $49,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program................. 8,300,000
Urban Area Formula Grants............................... 3,910,843,000
Bus and Bus Facility Grants............................. 927,750,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization............................ 1,570,000,000
Metropolitan Transportation Planning.................... 88,510,000
Statewide Transportation Planning....................... 18,490,000
Special Needs for Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities................................... 127,000,000
Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas........... 438,000,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Program.......... 156,000,000
New Freedom Program..................................... 87,500,000
Growing States and High Density States Formula.......... 438,000,000
National Transit Database............................... 3,500,000
Alternatives Analysis Program........................... 25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands.... 25,000,000
In addition, SAFETEA-LU mandates $492,167,593 for 662
designated bus and clean fuel bus projects in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee has included an administrative provision, as
proposed in the last two budget requests, which allows FTA to
provide grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a
factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric bus system.
This new authority, plus the $49,000,000 provided under
SAFETEA-LU for the clean fuels grant program, is a good
response to the direction in House Report 109-307 encouraging
FTA to provide more incentives for hybrid electric bus systems.
The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided
in the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts
for the following bus and bus facilities projects:
Ardmore transit center, Pennsylvania
Attleboro Intermodal Mixed-Use Garage Facility, Massachusetts
Binghamton Intermodal Terminal, Broome Country, New York
Burbank Empire Area Transit Center, California
Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania
Denton Downtown multimodal transit facility, Texas
Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots, California
Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion, Maryland
Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility, Washington
Hampton Roads Transit New Maintenance Facilities, Virginia
Howard County Transit repair Facility, Maryland
Irvington Intermodal Upgrades, New York
Jacobi Transportation Facility, New York
Leesburg Train Depot Renovation and Restoration, Georgia
Regional Transit Project for Quitman, Clay, Randolph and
Stewart Counties, Georgia Renaissance Square, New York
Rochester Central Bus Terminal, New York
Springfield Union Station, Springfield, Massachusetts
Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center, Washington,
District of Columbia
White Plains Downtown Circulator, New York
The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the
following bus and bus facility projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.037
Job access and reverse commute program.--The Committee
remains concerned that numerous cities and communities have
been adversely impacted by the changes made in SAFETEA-LU to
the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. These
changes have caused JARC funds to be allocated by formula,
rather than targeted on low income and transit reliant
communities. The Committee reiterates its direction to the
Administrator to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by May 4, 2008 on the effects of this change on
the ability of former recipients of JARC funds to meet the
goals of the program.
Alternatives analysis.--The Committee recommendation
includes $25,000,000 for the alternatives analysis program. The
Committee directs that funding be allocated for the following
projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.038
Clean fuel bus program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $26,000,000 (section 165) to increase the FTA's clean
fuel bus program to a total funding level of $75,000,000.
RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $61,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 61,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 65,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +4,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +4,500,000
Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU). Starting in
fiscal year 2006, activities formerly under the ``Transit
Planning and Research'' account are now under the ``Formula and
Bus Grants'' account. The National Research program, the
Transit Cooperative Research Program, and the National
Institute are funded under this new heading.
Funding for the National Research programs will be used to
cover costs for FTA's essential safety and security activities
and transit safety data collection. Under the national
component of the program, FTA is a catalyst in the research,
development and deployment of transportation methods and
technologies which address issues such as accessibility for the
disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services
and operational improvements. The University Research Centers
program will provide continued support for research education
and technology transfer activities aimed at addressing regional
and national transportation problems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $65,500,000 for research
activities of FTA, $4,500,000 above both the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and the budget request. The Committee's
recommendation fully funds the research activities of the FTA
as required by SAFETEA-LU. Within the funds provided, the
Committee's recommendation includes $9,300,000 for transit
cooperative research; $4,300,000 for the National Transit
Institute; and $7,000,000 for the university centers program.
Also included within this amount is $22,250,000 for 24 specific
research projects that were designated in the highway
authorization bill (SAFETEA-LU).
Consistent with the direction that was provided in fiscal
year 2007, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 18, 2008
on all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2007
and 2008. For each project, the report should include
information on the National relevance of the research,
relevance to the transit industry and community, expected final
product and delivery date, sources of non-FTA funding committed
to the project or research institute, and FTA funding history.
The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the
following projects:
American cities transportation institute, PA.......... $300,000
BuSolutions advanced transit research, MI............. 700,000
Community transportation association of America, 1,600,000
nationwide joblinks..................................
East Tennessee hydrogen initiative, TN................ 700,000
Southern fuel cell coalition demonstration project, GA 200,000
Public transportation for the elderly.--The Committee notes
that by 2030, 70 million Americans will be age 65 and over and
will comprise 20 percent of the United States population. This
is twice the number of elderly individuals from 2000. Mobility
will become an increasing concern as our population ages over
the next two decades. Given this demographic shift, the
Committee believes that FTA should include the public
transportation needs of an aging population into its long term
strategic planning. Since the Committee has met the research
funding guarantees required in SAFETEA-LU, the Committee
directs FTA to utilize funding provided in this account to
research and demonstrate effective solutions to increase
mobility for older adults. In addition, FTA should identify
proven strategies for providing coordinated transportation
services for older adults that can be replicated by other
communities. The Committee is hopeful that such research and
planning in this area will result in strategies to help
communities prepare for this changing population.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,566,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 1,399,818,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,700,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +134,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +300,182,000
Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed
guideway transit systems are awarded to public bodies and
agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public
bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities,
other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and
instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public
corporations, boards and commissions under state law. The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59) (SAFETEA-LU) made two
significant changes to the major capital investment grant
program. First, the program is now funded entirely from the
General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for bus and bus
facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, plus
alternative analysis funds are now eligible under the ``Formula
and Bus Grants'' account, which is funded by the Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Grants to the Denali
Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries are dictated by
SAFETEA-LU. Other projects and investments are authorized by
SAFETEA-LU and are subject to regulation and oversight by FTA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,700,000,000 for capital
investment grants, $300,182,000 above the budget request and
$134,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Within
the amount provided, the Committee includes a total of
$17,000,000, or approximately one percent, for oversight
activities of the investments in this account.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.039
The Committee's recommendation includes a rescission of
$17,760,000 from this account. Funds for the rescission are to
be derived from any project which still has not obligated
appropriated funds after three years.
The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided
in the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts
for the following new start projects:
Canal Street Corridor, New Orleans, Louisiana
Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, Virginia
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Northeast downtown corridor project, Indianapolis, Indiana
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, Santa Clara
County, California
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended,
requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty
days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Committee directs the FTA to include the
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2007; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an
evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the
applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability
to finance the project, which shall be conducted by an
independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of
the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; (7) the source
and security of all public- and private-sector financial
instruments; (8) the project's operating plan, which enumerates
the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a
listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks
associated with the project.
The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty
days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any
full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to
changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes
that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in
the full funding grant agreement, including any proposed change
in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee also
directs FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each
project with a full funding grant agreement or is within two
years of a full funding grant agreement. The Committee finds
the monthly updates informative and a useful oversight tool.
Small starts projects.--The Committee recommendation
includes $200,000,000 for the small starts program as
authorized by SAFETEA-LU. The Committee includes funding for
the following projects:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.040
Criteria for new start and small start projects.--Prior to
the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, new start projects had to complete
alternatives analysis; preliminary engineering; local financial
commitment to the project; and be justified by the FTA's review
of the project's mobility improvements, environmental benefits,
cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. With the
passage of SAFETEA-LU, Congress added economic development and
public transportation supportive land use policies to the
required project justification criteria. SAFETEA-LU also
created the small starts program which requires projects to be
justified, in part, by a review of a project's economic
development impacts, land use policies, and cost effectiveness.
The Committee believes that the addition of economic
development and land use as criteria for the new starts and
small starts programs was intentional and deliberate. The
Committee is concerned that FTA is not adequately incorporating
the economic development and land use criteria to both
programs. Accordingly, the Committee directs FTA to modify the
existing project evaluation process when evaluating, rating and
recommending new starts and small starts projects to Congress
for funding to include economic development and land use. For
new starts, the revised project evaluation, rating and
recommendation process should incorporate the six project
justification factors through all phases of project development
and advancement by utilizing a multiple-measure approach that
does not base the project recommendation and funding decision
on any single factor.
Public-private partnership pilot program.--The Committee is
aware that FTA, through its Public-Private Partnership Pilot
Program, is examining whether innovated procurement
methodologies can reduce and allocate risks associated with the
construction of new fixed guideway projects. The Committee
encourages FTA to explore developing innovative finance pilot
projects that would leverage private sector investment, reduce
the federal cost share for capital projects, and speed
completion of new transit systems.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on
obligations.
Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that
allows funds not obligated by September 30, 2010 for projects
under ``Capital Investment Grants'' and bus and bus facilities
under ``Formula and Bus Grants'' to be available for other
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current
activities.
Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that
allows unobligated funds for projets under ``Capital Investment
Grants'' to be used in this fiscal year for activities eligible
in the year the funds were appropriated.
Section 164. The Committee includes a provision, as
proposed in the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 budget requests, that
allows FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the net capital
cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric
system in a bus.
Section 165. The Committee includes a provision to provide
funds for the clean fuels program.
Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which
repeals a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a
subway system in Los Angeles, CA.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $16,223,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 17,392,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 17,392,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,169,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
Seaway) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by
the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The Seaway is
responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of
the United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between
Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located
in Massena, New York and vessel traffic control in areas of the
St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the Seaway
is to serve the United States intermodal and international
transportation system by improving the operation and
maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and
environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The Seaway's
major priorities include: safety, reliability, trade
development, management accountability, and bi-national
collaboration with its Canadian counterpart.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$17,392,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the
corporation, which is $1,169,000 above the fiscal year 2007
enacted level and the same level requested in the fiscal year
2008 budget. Appropriations from the harbor maintenance trust
fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the
corporation is responsible. The Committee was pleased the
Administration did not request to institute tolls on the U.S.
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway as attempted in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007.
The Committee looks forward to the release of the Great
Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study, a binational study focused on
the marine infrastructure needs of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Seaway, to aid in planning and investing in the Seaway. The
Committee recognizes the Seaway's infrastructure is aging. The
Committee further recognizes that efforts to modernize the
Seaway will not only increase efficiency but improve the
reliability of the Seaway's operations.
Maritime Administration
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for
programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support
of the Nation's security and economic needs, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD's mission is to promote
the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced
United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation's
domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its
waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval
and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.
MARAD, working with the Department of Defense (DOD), helps
provide a seamless, time-phased transition from peacetime to
wartime operations, while balancing the defense and commercial
elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also
manages the maritime security program, the voluntary intermodal
sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which
assures DOD access to commercial and strategic sealift and
associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD's education
and training programs through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and six state maritime schools help provide skilled U.S.
merchant marine officers.
MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $154,440,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 154,440,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 156,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,560,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +1,560,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $156,000,000 for the maritime
security program (MSP), $1,560,000 above the budget request and
the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. This recommendation
provides funding directly to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will
continue to administer the program with support and
consultation of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the
MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to
serve the national security needs of the United States. The MSP
provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in
U.S.-foreign trade. Participating operators are required to
keep the vessels in active commercial service and are required
to provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of
Defense in times of war or national emergency. The Committee's
recommendation provides funding for 60 ships, at a payment per
ship of $2,600,000. The recommendation will provide the
necessary resources for the operation of the MSP through fiscal
year 2008. Funds are available until expended.
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $111,522,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 115,276,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 118,646,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +7,124,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +3,370,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $118,646,000 for operations and
training, $3,370,000 above the budget request and $7,124,000
above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. Funds provided
for this account are to be distributed as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008
Activity request House recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
Salary and Benefits........... $24,720 $24,720
Midshipmen Program............ 6,977 6,977
Instructional Program......... 5,689 5,689
Program Direction and 2,916 2,916
Administration...............
Maintenance, Repair, & 7,307 7,307
Operating Requirements.......
Capital Improvements.......... 13,850 14,139
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, USMMA........... 61,458 61,747
=====================================
State Maritime Schools:
Student Incentive Payments.... 0 800
Direct Payments............... 1,881 1,782
Schoolship Maintenance and 8,119 10,500
Repair.......................
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, State Maritime 10,000 13,082
Academies................
=====================================
MARAD Operations:
Base Operations............... 33,612 33,612
Information technology and 8,113 8,113
electronic government........
IT setaside................... 98 98
Delphi/Accounting............. 1,258 1,258
GSA Space Increase............ 736 736
-------------------------------------
Subtotal, MARAD Operations 43,818 43,818
=====================================
Subtotal, Operations and 115,276 118,646
Training.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Numbers may not add due to rounding.
The Committee recommends $61,747,000 for the operation and
maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), an
increase of $289,000 over the budget request. Of the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $24,720,000 for salaries and
benefits, which is available until September 30, 2008, and
$14,139,000 for capital improvements to the USMMA, which is
available until expended.
The Committee recommends $13,082,000 for the six state
maritime schools (SMS), $3,082,000 above the budget request and
$1,983,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. In
its budget request, MARAD proposed to sunset the student
incentive payment (SIP) program and, in exchange, slightly
increase direct payments to schools. As justification for the
sunset, MARAD noted that the number of SIP participants
entering into the program has continued to decrease in recent
years. However, information from MARAD indicates the level of
SIP participation has been relatively constant since 2003, and
is expected to increase by 4 participants for a total level of
155 in fiscal year 2007.
Therefore, the Committee provides $800,000 to continue and
fully support the SIP program in fiscal year 2008. In addition,
the Committee provides $1,782,000 in SMS direct payments,
consistent with the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 level. The
Committee requires MARAD to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations information on the SIP program,
including the number of SIP participants, SIP graduates, and
SIP participants that did not become SIP graduates per year for
the last eight years as well as the Federal funding expended to
support the program for each of those years.
The Committee provides $10,500,000 for schoolship
maintenance and repair, which is available until expended. The
Committee notes that the budget proposal of $8,119,000 would
keep the SIRIUS in a dormant state, unavailable for training
purposes and unable to respond to disasters. MARAD's
congressional justification mentions that this funding level
also may result in the lay-up of the ENTERPRISE. The Committee
provides the increase of $2,389,000 to ensure all six training
ships are in a state of good repair and available for training
purposes, consistent with MARAD's statutory obligations.
The Committee recommends $43,818,000 for MARAD operations,
the same as the budget request. Within this total, the
Committee provides $8,113,000 for information technology (IT)
related activities and electronic government.
MARAD reorganization.--The Committee is dismayed that
MARAD, in direct contradiction to the law, did not notify or
brief the Committee on its planned reorganization. This is
particularly disappointing since the reorganization, which
entails not only headquarters level changes but also the
creation of new field offices throughout the country, will
significantly impact MARAD's requests of this Committee.
Further, MARAD provided the Committee with an overview,
lacking substance, only after the reorganization was well
underway (and, in fact, it may have been completed). However,
to this day, the Committee has received little in the way of
details, not even an organization chart, let alone any out-year
cost of FTE estimate. Because this reorganization directly
affects the work of this Committee and presumes an increase in
appropriation level to fund its changes, the Committee directs
MARAD to provide an adequate justification and prohibits MARAD
from establishing any new offices before it briefs the
Committee.
General provisions.--The Committee notes that MARAD has not
provided any justification for, nor has it addressed, the
general or administrative provisions it proposes in the
President's budget. The Committee directs MARAD to justify each
provision proposed in a section of its Congressional budget
justification.
SHIP DISPOSAL
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $20,790,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 20,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 17,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -3,790,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -3,000,000
MARAD serves as the federal government's disposal agent for
government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or
more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose
of obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required
by Public Law 106-398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by
the end of 2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental
threat due to the presence of hazardous substances such as
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The list includes a nuclear ship, the SAVANNAH, which contains
remnants of a nuclear reactor.
There are currently 119 obsolete vessels located in three
fleet sites in the NDRF awaiting disposal. According to MARAD's
budget justification, MARAD removed 23 ships for disposal in
2006 and expected that it would remove another 18 in 2007 and
16 in 2008. MARAD expected that by the end of 2008, it would
have removed all high priority ships and a significant number
of moderate priority ships available for disposal.
However, in a letter dated March 8, 2007, MARAD notified
the Committee that it suspended the program on February 21,
2007 due to environmental issues associated with hull cleaning.
In 2006, the Coast Guard began requiring MARAD to remove marine
growth from ship hulls before allowing vessels to be towed to a
domestic recycling facility. As a result, MARAD cancelled two
awards and did not award seven additional pending contracts in
December 2006. Although the moratorium no longer applies to
vessels in Virginia, the dispute continues to impede the
program in Texas and California.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for ship disposal,
$3,000,000 below the budget request. Within the funds provided,
the Committee recommends $4,704,000 to decommission the
SAVANNAH. Funds are available until expended. Although the
Committee fully supports this program, the funding reduction
will not have a negative effect on the program as all funds
available will likely not be able to be spent in fiscal year
2008. Not only is the program suspended in two of three states,
$15,993,000 is available in fiscal year 2007 from carry-over
funding, and another $20,790,000 was appropriated in the 2007
Act. Even if the environmental issues were solved immediately,
MARAD is captive to limited capacity at domestic recycling
facilities, which it must share with commercial and Navy ship
recycling work. The Committee notes that MARAD has been working
with the revelant agencies of jurisdiction in each of the
affected states and is hopeful that a resolution can be
reached. The Committee will reevaluate its decision as
additional progress is made.
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $4,085,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\.................. - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,408,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -677,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +3,408,000\1\ Does not include the $3,408,000 proposed by MARAD in redirected
funds provided in section 112 of title I, Public Law 109-115.
The maritime guaranteed loan account as provided for by
title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for
guaranteed loans for purchasers of ships from the U.S.
shipbuilding industry and for modernization of U.S. shipyards.
Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are
appropriated to this account, and then transferred by
reimbursement to operations and training to be obligated and
outlayed.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this
account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan
guarantee commitments made in 1992 and beyond (including
modifications of direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted
from obligations or commitments in any year), as well as
administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts
are estimated on a net present value basis; the administrative
expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee rejects the President's proposal to transfer
funding from funding contained in a prior appropriations Act,
and instead recommends $3,408,000 in appropriated funds.
SHIP CONSTRUCTION
(RESCISSION)
Rescission, fiscal year 2007.......................... $-2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... -3,526,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 2007...................... 1,526,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -3,526,000
The Committee rescinds $3,526,000 from the ship
construction account. This account is currently inactive except
for determinations regarding the use of vessels built under the
program, final settlement of open contracts, and closing of
financial accounts.
ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... $5,650,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -5,650,000
The Truman-Hobbs Act authorized the U.S. Coast Guard to
alter bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation. The purpose
of these alterations is to improve the safety of marine
navigation under the bridge. Currently 15 bridges are eligible
for funding under the Alteration of Bridges program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee rejects the President's proposal to transfer
the alteration of bridges program from the U.S. Coast Guard to
MARAD on October 1, 2007. The Committee notes that it has not
yet received a legislative proposal to effectuate this
transfer. Further, the Committee does not agree with the
Administration's approach that altering obstructive highway
bridges be funded from the highway trust fund especially since
the Congressional Budget Office projects the trust fund will be
insolvent in 2009. This funding approach was not included in
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) or the Administration's
proposal on surface reauthorization. The purpose of altering
these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation
under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the
bridge itself. Since in some cases, unsafe conditions exist on
the waterway beneath a bridge that has an adequate surface or
structural condition, the highway trust fund is not appropriate
to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. The
Committee notes that the 2001 President's budget attempted a
similar approach, which the Committee rejected for these same
reasons.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy
involving government property under the control of MARAD and
rental payments shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits obligations incurred during the current year from
construction funds in excess of the appropriations contained in
this Act or in any prior appropriations Act.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), which was established as an administration within the
Department of Transportation effective November 30, 2004,
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246), is responsible for the
department's pipeline safety program and oversight of hazardous
materials transportation safety operations. As part of its
mission, the agency is dedicated to safety by working toward
the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries
in hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and
protect the natural environment.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $18,031,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 18,130,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 18,130,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +99,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
This appropriation finances the program support costs for
the PHMSA. This includes policy development, counsel, budget,
financial management, civil rights, management, administration
and agency-wide expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $18,130,000 for these costs, of
which $639,000 is to be provided from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
The Committee expects PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in
its budget justification.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $26,723,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 27,003,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 28,899,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +2,176,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +1,896,000
The PHMSA oversees the safety of the more than 800,000
daily shipments of hazardous materials in the United States and
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments
to understand, communicate, and reduce dangers inherent in
hazardous materials transportation. The agency formulates,
issues and revises hazardous materials regulations which cover
hazardous materials definitions and classifications, hazard
communications, shipper and carrier operations, training and
security requirements, and packaging and container
specifications.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $28,899,000 to continue the agency's
hazardous materials safety functions, $1,896,000 above the
request and $2,176,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year
2007 level.
Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).--In fiscal year
2007, the Committee provided additional resources sufficient
fund four new inspectors, as had been requested, to achieve a
more effective level of inspections, address the need to
investigate undeclared shipments, and improve cross-modal data
sharing. This would increase the hazardous materials safety
program to 156.5 FTE in fiscal year 2008. However, the agency's
budget proposes to cut two FTE from this program with little or
no justification despite the fact that the Committee has been
very supportive of staffing increases in recent years. As such,
the Committee includes $19,714,000 for the operating expenses
of the hazardous materials safety programs, $247,000 above the
request, which should be sufficient to fund 156.5 FTE as
previously approved by the Committee.
Research, development, and other programs.--PHMSA's fiscal
year 2008 budget requests an additional $1,100,000 for a new
hazardous materials intermodal portal. In order to offset the
funding for this new initiative, as well as other mandatory
increases for inflation, pay raises, and GSA rent, the budget
makes significant cuts to other programs, including reducing
contract programs by $852,000, research and development (R&D)
activities by $338,000, and the hazardous materials
registration program by $459,000.
The Committee's recommendation restores funding to these
programs in order to maintain them at the fiscal year 2007
funding level and provides $9,185,000 to be distributed as
follows:
Hazardous materials information system............... $1,855,000
Research and analysis................................ 651,000
Inspection and enforcement........................... 232,000
Rulemaking support................................... 463,000
Training and outreach................................ 1,438,000
Hazardous materials intermodal portal................ 1,100,000
Emergency preparedness............................... 381,000
Hazardous material registration program.............. 1,236,000
R&D information systems.............................. 577,000
R&D research and analysis............................ 676,000
R&D regulation compliance............................ 576,000
------------------
Total............................................ 9,185,000
Hazardous materials intermodal portal.--The budget requests
$1,100,000 to develop a single Department-wide data system that
will integrate ``stovepiped'' data and help coordinate efforts
to monitor the vast hazardous materials community to target
poor performers and security threats. The total cost of the
portal is $1,500,000, of which $400,000 is funded in the
pipeline safety appropriation. The Committee approves this
request.
PIPELINE SAFETY
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
(Oil spill
(Pipeline safety liability trust Total
fund) fund)Appropriation, fiscal year 2007........................ $60,065,000 $14,850,000 $74,915,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008....................... 55,770,000 18,810,000 74,580,000
Recommended in the bill................................ 60,065,000 18,810,000 78,875,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.................... - - - +3,960,000 +3,960,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................... +4,295,000 - - - +4,295,000
PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental
protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage
prevention, education and training, enforcement of regulations
and standards, research and development, grants for states
pipeline safety programs, and emergency planning and response
to accidents. The pipeline safety program is responsible for a
national regulatory program to protect the public against the
risks to life and property in the transportation of natural
gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $78,875,000 to continue pipeline safety
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid
in fiscal year 2008, which is $4,295,000 over the request and
$3,960,000 over the fiscal year 2007 level. The bill specifies
that of the total appropriation, $18,810,000 shall be derived
from the oil spill liability trust fund and $60,065,000 shall
be from the pipeline safety fund.
Investigator Positions.--The budget requests eight new
investigator positions to enhance data collection, evaluate
pipeline operator performance, design improvement programs,
and, when necessary, respond to pipeline incidents. The
Committee approves these positions and provides the associated
half-year costs.
In total, the Committee provides $31,342,000 for salaries
and benefits, travel, and other operating expenses associated
with the pipeline safety activities of the agency.
Contract programs.--The Committee provides $17,050,000 for
the contract programs associated with PHMSA's pipeline safety
operations, including $400,000 for the hazardous materials
intermodal portal, and activities associated with implementing
the Oil Pollution Act.
Research and development.--PHMSA's budget proposes to
reduce the agency's investment in pipeline safety research and
development by $5,343,000 to a meager $3,750,000 in fiscal year
2008. This represents almost a sixty percent reduction below
the fiscal year 2007 level of $9,093,000. The budget notes that
these funds are being redirected in order to provide additional
funding for state grants as the agency tries to refocus its
efforts to meet the mandates of the recently passed pipeline
safety reauthorization, the Pipeline Inspection, Protection,
Enforcement, and Safety Act (PIPES Act) of 2006. However, the
research and development activities of PHMSA are used to
improve pipeline inspection technology and analysis tools to
strengthen the industry's ability to effectively manage
pipeline integrity. Research also helps to improve the
operators' ability to prevent damage to pipelines, detect
leaks, and develop stronger pipe materials. Therefore, the
Committee restores some of the cuts to these programs and
provides $7,425,000 for these activities in fiscal year 2008.
State one-call grants.--The Committee directs that no less
than $1,043,000 of the funds provided shall be for state one-
call grants, as requested.
State pipeline safety grants.--In December 2006, Section
2(c) of the PIPES Act amended section 60107(a) of title 49,
United States Code (U.S.C.), to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to pay for up to 80 percent of the cost of
personnel, equipment, and other activities incurred by state
pipeline agencies during the calendar year. The previous limit
had been up to 50 percent. In fiscal year 2006, PHMSA provided
$18,320,730 for the gas and liquid state grant program, which
was only 42 percent of the $43,551,854 requested by the states.
PHMSA's budget states that the agency's goal is to increase the
federal funding for these grants incrementally by 5 percent
each year until the 80 percent cap is reached in order to
encourage states to remain in the pipeline safety program. The
Committee provides $20,000,000 for these pipeline safety grants
in fiscal year 2008 to assist state pipeline agencies to
increase inspection and enforcement activities, an increase of
$1,503,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year 2007 level of
$18,497,000.
State damage prevention grants.--Section 60134 of title 49,
U.S.C., establishes a new grant program to assist in improving
the overall quality and effectiveness of damage prevention
programs of the states. Since outside force damage is a leading
cause of release incidents and is often in close proximity to
populated areas, the Committee provides $1,515,000 for this
grant program in fiscal year 2008 as requested.
Technology development grants.--The budget requests
$500,000 to establish a grant program for the development of
technologies to facilitate the prevention of pipeline damage
caused by excavation activities. The Committee provides the
funding for these grants as requested.
Pipeline safety user fee allocation.--The pipeline safety
program, including state grants, is largely funded through user
fees on natural gas transmission pipelines, jurisdictional
hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied natural gas terminal
operators. Yet, the PIPES Act has increased the
responsibilities for PHMSA and the states with respect to the
safety of our nation's pipelines. Given this change in scope of
the pipeline safety program, the Committee directs PHMSA to
review the user fee collection process to determine if it
should be modified to more equitably allocate the cost of the
pipeline safety program across the industry segments covered by
federal and state oversight. PHMSA shall submit a report to
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
February 1, 2008, that summarizes: the agency's statutory
authority to revise the fee structure; its assessment of the
current fee structure; and any recommendations for changes to
the fee structure that should be considered as a result of the
passage of the PIPES Act.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
(Emergency (Emergency
preparedness preparedness Total
fund) grant program)Appropriation, fiscal year 2007........................ $198,000 ($14,157,000) $14,355,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008....................... 188,000 (28,318,000) 28,506,000
Recommended in the bill................................ 188,000 (28,318,000) 28,506,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.................... -10,000 (+14,161,000) +14,151,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................... - - - - - - - - -
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires the 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 $188,000, the same amount as
requested, for activities related to emergency response
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided
an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the emergency
preparedness grant program.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA) was established as an administration within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004,
pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act, Public Law 108-426. The mission of RITA is to
provide strategic clarity to DOT's multi-modal and intermodal
research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research
agenda of the department.
RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the following
research and development programs and activities: advancement
and research and development of innovative technologies,
including intelligent transportation systems; education and
training in transportation and transportation-related fields,
including the University Transportation Centers and the
Transportation Safety Institute; and activities of the Volpe
National Transportation Center.
Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), which is funded from the Federal Highway
Administration's federal-aid highway account. BTS 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
DOT through research, the development of guidelines, and the
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $7,736,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 12,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 12,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +4,264,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $12,000,000 to continue research and
development activities in fiscal year 2008. This funding level
is sufficient to fund 36 full-time equivalent staff years
(FTE), an increase of 3 FTE over the fiscal year 2007 level.
Research Programs.--Within the fiscal year 2008 recommended
funding level, the Committee provides $6,036,000 for RITA's
research, development, and technology (RD&T) programs as
follows:
Hydrogen fuels safety R&D............................... $500,000
RD&T coordination....................................... 536,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System....... 5,000,000
The Committee recommends that the $6,036,000 provided for
these RD&T programs be available until September 30, 2010.
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)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... ($27,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... (27,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (27,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
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. The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTE in fiscal
year 2008.
Office of Inspector General
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $64,043,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 66,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 66,400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +2,357,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $66,400,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), consistent
with the budget request. The Committee continues to value
highly the work of the OIG in oversight of departmental
programs and activities.
In addition, the OIG will receive $6,874,000 from other
agencies in this bill, as noted below:
Federal Highway Administration.......................... $4,024,000
Federal Transit Administration.......................... 2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration......................... 750,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 100,000
Funding is sufficient to finance 410 full-time equivalent
(FTE) staff years in fiscal year 2008, for a decrease of 10 FTE
from the fiscal year 2007 level.
The Committee recognizes that the National Transportation
Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-443)
authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit,
at least annually, NTSB programs and expenditures, including
information security. It also provided that the NTSB and OIG in
the absense of a direct appropriation, enter into a
reimbursable agreement for any NTSB-related audits or reviews
performed by the OIG.
On February 2, 2007, the OIG notified NTSB that it would
continue to perform the annual audit of NTSB's financial
statements under the Chief Financial Officers Act, maintain the
hotline, and conduct follow-up investigations on a cost
reimbursement basis. OIG intends to enter into a reimbursable
agreement with NTSB for costs associated with these activities
(approximately $100,000).
Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and
ticket agents.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Surface Transportation Board
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created on
January 1, 1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). The ICCTA
abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had
previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail
and certain other provisions to the STB; and transferred
certain motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway
Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration).
The STB is a three-member, bipartisan, independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT that is
specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and
pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of
motor carriers and water carriers. The STB's regulatory
oversight of rail carriers encompasses the regulation of rates,
mergers and acquisitions, construction, and abandonment of
railroad lines, as well as the planning, analysis and policy
development associated with these activities. The STB's
jurisdiction also includes certain regulation of the intercity
bus industry and surface pipeline carriers as well as the rate
regulation of water transportation in the non-contiguous
domestic trade, household-good carriers, and collectively
determined motor rates.
The law empowers the STB through its exemption authority to
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis
and continues intact the important rail reforms made by the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $26,324,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 \1\.................. 23,085,000
Recommended in the bill \1\........................... 26,495,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +170,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +3,410,000
\1\ Assumes collection of $1,250,000 in user fees, to offset the
appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$26,495,000, an increase of $3,410,000 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 years.
The Committee's recommendation funds the following
increases above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level:
Annualization of fiscal year 2007 pay raise............. $106,000
Fiscal year 2008 pay raise.............................. +330,000
GSA rent increase at new facility....................... +398,000
Inflation............................................... +61,000
Working capital fund increase........................... +38,000
Fiscal year 2008 equipment expenses (one-time).......... +133,000
These increases are offset by a reduction of $892,000 for
the one-time relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2007.
User fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C.
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The
Committee believes that $1,250,000 in user fees is reasonable.
Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and
reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as the fees are received and credited. The Committee
continues this language to simplify the tracking of the
collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in
spending its appropriated funds.
STB case report.--The Committee is aware of frustration
over rail service and freight rail charges among rail
customers, including electric utilities, rural electric
cooperatives, paper companies, agricultural industries and
local units of government. The Committee recognizes that the
four major railroads now control more than 94 percent of the
industry's revenues and 90 percent of the rail track and that
there are fewer options for shippers that rely on the nation's
major railroads for service. The Committee directs the STB to
issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2008, that shows the number of
complaints that have been filed related to high rail charges
and poor service since January 2005, the STB's determinations
in these cases, and the status and timing of decisions in any
pending cases.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12,
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County,
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if
shown to be appropriate.
Waste transfer and sorting facilities.--The Committee
recognizes that a growing number of certain waste haulers and
rail companies have sought to exploit a potential loophole in
the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act in order to
construct and operate unregulated waste transfer and sorting
facilities on railroad properties. The developers of these
types of facilities are claiming that ICCTA grants federal
preemption from local, state and certain federal regulations
that protect the public interest with respect to solid waste.
The Committee disagrees with this interpretation of ICCTA
preemption since the operation of solid waste facilities is not
integral to transportation by rail. The Committee urges the STB
to expeditiously clarify that these types of facilities are
indeed subject to the same local, state, and federal laws and
regulations as other solid waste facilities.
Retirement-eligible personnel.--The Committee notes that
approximately 34 percent of the current Board staff are
retirement-eligible. The Committee encourages the Board to
utilize the flexibility provided by the authorized 150 FTE cap,
as well as other internal mechanisms, to manage the retirement
bubble over the next few fiscal years in order to prevent a
sudden and detrimental loss of personnel due to retirements.
General Provisions--Department of Transportation
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft;
motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances,
as authorized by law.
Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the
rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 182. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and
Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Section 183. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of
title 23, United State Code.
Section 184. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from
releasing personal information, including social security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
from states, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training may be credited to each agency's respective accounts.
Section 186. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock
sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 187. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for
any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than
three full business days before any discretionary grant award,
letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal
administrations.
Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from
rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to
appropriations.
Section 189. The Committee amends slightly a provision
continued for years allowing amounts from improper payments to
a third party contractor or contractor support that are
lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be
available to cover expenses incurred in the recovery of such
payments.
Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that
clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass
included in Public Law 102-143.
Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that
clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway
project included in section 378 of Public Law 106-346.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SUSTAINABILITY IN HUD'S HOUSING PROGRAMS
The Committee held several hearings focused on the future
direction of housing and transportation policy, and heard a
consistent refrain that sustainability, both in the nation's
housing and transportation infrastructure, should be a key
component in planning for the future. The Committee firmly
believes that the federal government should be a leader in this
area, and that a great deal of progress can be made through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
According to HUD's own figures, the Department assists more
than 5 million renters and homeowners and spends about 10
percent of its total budget, approximately $4,000,000,000, in
energy costs through its various housing programs. The
Committee notes that HUD has made initial steps to improve
energy efficiency in its programs, including the adoption of an
Energy Action Plan in April 2002. In addition, Section 154 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required HUD to implement an
integrated energy strategy to improve awareness about energy
saving technologies and provide limited incentives for energy
efficiency. HUD has also signed a joint partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to
promote energy efficiency in HUD's affordable housing programs.
The Committee strongly believes that increased energy
efficiency in HUD programs is beneficial to the agency through
lowered utility costs. Just as important, however, is the fact
that decreased energy costs benefit lower income families and
communities served by HUD's programs. In fact, the population
assisted through HUD programs can realize significant health,
economic and environmental benefits from more sustainable
approaches to affordable housing development. However, the
Committee is concerned that HUD's energy and environmental
initiatives have been largely ineffective because they rely on
voluntary actions and provide few incentives for compliance.
For example, for the HOPE VI program, HUD currently awards just
1 point for Energy Star compliance out of a total of 125
points. Similar weak incentives are found in other HUD housing
programs.
HUD should go beyond voluntary and limited incentives for
energy efficiency and incorporate robust green building and
rehabilitation standards into its housing programs.
Preliminary studies of green affordable housing
developments have found a 2 to 4 percent increase in the cost
of construction. However, these same studies also report
substantial energy and water utility savings for low-income
families living in green affordable housing. A recent review
found Green Communities homes were 30 percent more energy
efficient than traditional homes and that the average household
can save hundreds of dollars per year in decreased utility
costs. Furthermore, during the Committee's hearings on
sustainable communities this year, a reputable green housing
developer testified that it takes only 5 to 7 years to repay
the increase in green construction costs through long-term
operational savings.
The Committee is convinced that the results of initiatives
such as the Green Communities program and the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) rating system are increasingly demonstrating that
sustainable development can be achieved on a cost effective
basis. The Committee notes that a number of states and cities
have already incorporated green building criteria into their
affordable housing programs.
By including strong green building standards into HUD
programs, such as HOPE VI, the Committee believes that HUD will
be able to better promote sustainable communities and healthy
living environments, as well as reduce utility costs for low-
income families.
Some programs already contain energy efficiency components,
which should be utilized, and other programs could find ways to
better incorporate green principles. For example, the HOME
program statute authorizes funds for technical assistance and
capacity development to improve the ability of grantees to
incorporate energy efficiency into affordable housing (42
U.S.C. 12782). The Committee urges HUD to investigate the costs
of requiring stronger environmental standards in HUD programs;
the long-term operational savings to HUD that may result from
sustainable capital investments in public housing; and how HUD
can better incorporate energy efficiency measures and green
building standards into all housing programs, including but not
limited to the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, Section
202, Section 811 and HOPE VI programs.
COOPERATION BETWEEN HUD AND THE COMMITTEE
The Committee is disappointed that HUD has not been a more
willing partner in responding to the requests of the Committee.
The issues of low-income housing and community and urban
development are not partisan ones, and the Committee expects
HUD to work with the Committee in a manner that best reflects
the gravity and importance of its mission.
The Committee believes that HUD should be more forthcoming
in the provision of information to the Committee, particularly
as it relates to the actual funding needs of its programs. HUD
either does not know, or has not been willing to share, the
actual numbers and necessary funding needs with the Committee.
If the Department does not know this information, it is a sad
reflection on the agency. HUD should have a better grasp of its
contracts and funding needs, particularly in the Project-Based
Rental Assistance account. If HUD is simply disinclined to
share the information, this unwillingness to be responsive to
the Committee in the provision of housing and services for
vulnerable populations is reprehensible. It is in the best
interest of the Department, as well as the low- and moderate-
income populations that it serves, to be straightforward about
the funding levels necessary to sustain programs. The Committee
questions the practice of citing executive privilege as a
rationale for the withholding of requested budgetary
information. Accurate information is crucial to the Committee's
ability to comprehensively consider HUD's budgetary needs each
year, and is in keeping with the Committee's responsibility to
evaluate the Administration's budget request.
Public and Indian Housing
TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $15,927,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 16,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 16,330,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +403,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +330,000,000
In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was
separated into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
and Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers
the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise
known as the Housing Choice Voucher program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $16,330,000,000 for tenant-based
rental assistance, an increase of $403,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2007 enacted level and $330,000,000 above the budget
request for Section 8 vouchers. Consistent with the budget
request, the Committee continues the advance of $4,193,000,000
of the funds appropriated under this heading for Section 8
programs to October 1, 2008. The entire advance is limited to
this account.
Voucher Renewals.--The Committee is providing
$14,744,506,000, which is an increase of $300,000,000 above the
budget request for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. The
Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends
in Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program
alterations due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income.
The fiscal year 2008 bill continues the ``budget based''
system of funding. However, the Committee recognizes that a
fully ``budget based'' system leaves the Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) with a single fixed amount for the calendar
year and with the difficult task of maximizing the renewal of
vouchers while operating under a complex regime of rules and
requirements that do nothing to facilitate the process. Absent
real reforms to the program to reduce costs and dramatic
changes to the program's implementation guidelines to reduce
the administrative burden, the Committee directs the Department
to take whatever regulatory and administrative actions it can
to increase flexibility, reduce administrative burden and
streamline program implementation. By January 1, 2008, the
Committee directs the Department to provide a full report on
the regulatory and administrative options available to the
Department and those it has implemented. However, absent real
programmatic and statutory reform these actions at best only
function as stop gap measures.
In the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution, Congress
made a necessary change to the funding formula that governs the
tenant-based rental assistance account. Instead of relying on
data from May, June and July of 2004, the new formula is based
on current leasing and cost data from the most recent twelve-
month period, which was defined as January 1, 2006 through
December 31, 2006. This adjustment is intended to capture the
true needs of PHAs and encourages PHAs to use their
undesignated fund balances for the purpose for which they were
appropriated--serving low-income families and individuals. The
Committee notes that the Administration proposed the same
change for fiscal year 2009. The Committee has been deeply
disappointed in the implementation of this formula change,
especially in light of the fact that similar language had been
proposed in the Senate appropriations bill for fiscal years
2006 and 2007. The Department seemed unwilling to update its
formula and was uncooperative in implementing this change. The
Department is reminded that its mission is to serve as many
low-income families and individuals as efficientlty as possible
and that it is a partner with the Committee in this effort.
The Committee reminds HUD that the undesignated fund
balances, or reserves, held by PHAs are funds meant to be used
for the housing of low-income families and individuals. The
Department is instructed to allow the PHAs to use these
undesignated fund balances in administering their programs, and
is not permitted to recapture or rescind these reserves for the
Housing Certificate Fund rescission.
Having changed the formula in the fiscal year 2007 joint
funding resolution, and understanding that the new funding
allocations were delayed due to the fiscal year 2007
Supplemental Appropriations bill, the Committee believes it is
important to give PHAs adequate time to transition to the new
formula. Therefore, the Committee has based the fiscal year
2008 tenant-based rental assistance renewal formula on the
amount PHAs actually received in fiscal year 2007. This ensures
that PHAs will have the time and stability to transition
effectively to the new formula, and will help to pinpoint the
increase in utilization due to the new formula.
In making the formula change, it became very clear that the
Department must be more open about the Voucher Management
System (VMS) data so that good policy and funding decisions can
be made from actual leasing and cost data. The Department is
therefore instructed to post current VMS data on its website on
a quarterly basis. This shared information will spur
innovation, will lead to better policy and funding decisions,
and will encourage PHAs to increase utilization rates. The
Committee notes that HUD is considering posting this
information ahead of Congressional direction.
The Committee continues and strengthens through bill
language the direction to the Department to communicate to each
PHA, within 45 days of enactment, the fixed amount that will be
made available to each PHA for calendar year 2008. The amount
being provided in this account is the only source of Federal
funds that may be used to renew tenant-based vouchers. The
amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any other
source.
The Committee agrees to the budget request that a portion
of the contract renewal funds may be used for additional rental
subsidy due to exigencies as determined by the Secretary and
for the one-time funding of housing assistance payments
resulting from the portability provisions of the housing choice
voucher program. The Committee directs that housing assistance
payments resulting from the portability provisions be the first
priority in the use of these funds.
Tenant protection.--The Committee provides $150,000,000 for
tenant protection vouchers, the same as the amount enacted for
fiscal year 2007 and as the budget request. As a result of the
variable nature of this activity from year to year, language is
included allowing the Department to use carryover and
recaptures of unexpended Section 8 balances to fund additional
rental assistance costs in addition to funds appropriated for
fiscal year 2008. These additional rental assistance costs are
limited to housing assistance payments and administrative fees
not to exceed the rate of administrative fees provided for
contract renewals. The Department is advised against
instructing PHAs to fund initial Tenant Protection Vouchers for
less than twelve calendar months or funding these vouchers from
the renewal account. The Department is instructed to report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 1,
2008 on the number of Tenant Protection Vouchers in use.
Further, the Committee instructs HUD to issue Tenant Protection
Vouchers for all units lost from the affordable stock, not only
those under lease. The need for affordable housing units is
great and the Committee is disappointed that HUD would advise
the further diminution of much-needed housing units.
Incremental Vouchers.--For the first time in five years,
the Committee includes funding for incremental vouchers,
specifically targeted to the non-elderly disabled population
and homeless veterans. The Committee provides $30,000,000 for
these vouchers, understanding that the need for vouchers by
these and other populations remains great. Of the incremental
vouchers provided, one thousand vouchers are to be provided for
homeless veterans, in accordance with the HUD-VASH program. The
Committee is dedicated to using its resources to fund current
vouchers effectively and efficiently, while providing new
vouchers for qualified populations.
Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends
$1,351,000,000 for allocation to the PHAs to conduct activities
associated with placing and maintaining individuals under
Section 8 assistance. This amount is $62,900,000 above the
enacted level for 2007 and the same as the level proposed in
the budget request. In addition, the Committee agrees with the
Administration's request to fund administrative fees based on
the number of units leased. This adjustment will incentivize
PHAs to serve more families and individuals and will lead to
increased utilization of vouchers, a key goal for the
Committee.
Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators (FSS).--The Committee
includes $48,000,000 for FSS coordinators, the same amount as
requested by the budget and $500,000 more than the level
enacted for 2007. Coordinators help residents link up with
important services in the community to speed the achievement of
self-sufficiency. The Committee recognizes the importance of
this activity and encourages HUD to work with PHAs to
efficiently and effectively utilize these resources.
Working Capital Fund.--The Committee provides the requested
amount of $6,494,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund.
The Committee directs the Department to continue to collect
and use Form HUD-0952681 for PHAs administering the Housing
Choice Voucher program.
Housing Certificate Fund
(RESCISSION)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..................... -$1,650,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................... -1,300,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. -1,300,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................. +350,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................ - - -
The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005,
provided funding for both the project-based and tenant-based
components of the Section 8 program. Project-based Rental
Assistance and Tenant-based Rental Assistance are now
separately funded accounts. The Housing Certificate Fund
retains balances from previous years' appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,300,000,000
from the Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-
based and project-based rental assistance programs as proposed
in the budget request. The Committee instructs the Department
to treat undesignated fund balances held by the public housing
authorities, however, as funds that belong to the public
housing authorities and may not be rescinded.
Public Housing Capital Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $2,438,964,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 2,024,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,438,964,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +414,964,000
The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public
housing capital programs, including public housing development
and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects
include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces,
upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the
interior of an apartment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total funding level of
$2,438,964,000, the same as the level provided in fiscal year
2007 and an increase of $414,964,000 above the budget request.
Within the amounts provided the committee directs that:
--$17,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital
needs; the Committee continues last year's language to ensure
that funds are used only for repairs needed due to an
unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural
disaster that occurs during fiscal year 2008;
--$38,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and
Supportive Services; the Committee recognizes the importance of
this program, which assists public housing residents in
achieving self-sufficiency. The Committee is concerned about
the large unexpended balance in this account and the fact that
HUD denied funding to a large majority of the applications due
to technical issues that agencies should have been allowed to
correct. The Committee directs HUD to issue a timely Notice of
Funding Availability for these funds and to report by March 1,
2008 on the number of applicants for these funds, the grants
awarded, and the Department's plan for expending the remaining
balances in this program.
--No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the
ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment
activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center;
--$10,890,000 is for Technical Assistance. The Department
is expected to cover the costs of the fair market rents (FMR)
surveys from funds remaining available in this account;
--$8,820,000 is directed to the support of administrative
and judicial receiverships; the Committee is concerned about
the length of time that several PHAs have been in receivership,
with little proven improvement. While the Committee recognizes
that it is a complex process to remediate the problems at these
agencies, the Committee is troubled that agencies have been in
receivership for as long as 22 years and that some cycle in and
out without improvement. The Committee directs HUD to report to
the Committee by January 1, 2008 the status of all PHAs in
receivership and the technical assistance provided, as well as
the demonstrated achievements by each PHA; and
--Up to $10,000,000 for transfer to the Working Capital
Fund to support the development of and modifications to,
information technology systems which support Public and Indian
Housing (PIH) programs. This reflects the Committee's continued
concern that investments must be made to correct deficiencies
in PIH information technology systems to improve PIH's ability
to conduct appropriate financial and management oversight of
its programs.
As requested, the recommendation does not designate a
separate set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because
such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds.
The Department is directed to continue to provide quarterly
detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with
obligation rates of less than 90 percent.
The Committee recognizes that the capital fund needs are
great, and fully believes that investments made to the valuable
asset of public housing should be made in a sustainable manner.
The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations methods for improving sustainable
rehabilitation and building practices in the capital fund
account.
Housing Operating Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,864,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 4,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +336,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +200,000,000
The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs
associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This
subsidy supplements funding received by public housing
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula
to public housing authorities for the following purposes:
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 for the Federal
share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is $336,000,000
above the enacted level for fiscal year 2007 and is
$200,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee does not
include funds to be used for the ``Housing Self-Sufficiency
Award.'' The Committee does not provide funding for the Asset-
Based Management Transition Fund, as the Committee does not
believe it should fund HUD's transition to asset management
when the PHAs making the transition are getting no such
assistance from HUD.
The Committee is deeply concerned about the implementation
of asset management for public housing. While most parties
agree that asset management is a worthy endeavor that can be
beneficial to public housing in the long run, HUD's overly
restrictive implementation of this new system contradicts the
stated goals of asset management. In particular, there are
concerns about the potential negative consequences of the
guidance HUD has issued given the regulatory and funding
differences between public housing and private housing. The
conversion to asset-based management has led to new regulatory
restrictions on public housing that the public housing industry
claims will lessen the quality of the housing and services
provided to the tenants. The most contentious of these new
restrictions are HUD-imposed management and related fees, which
can limit the flexibility of an agency in managing its
portfolio of housing projects. The Committee is concerned about
the impact of these new rules on the over one million families
living in public housing. The Final Rule requires HUD to
convene a meeting in 2009 in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The Final Rule states that this meeting
will ``review the methodology to evaluate'' public housing
Property Expense Levels ``based on actual cost data.'' The
Committee believes that this meeting is an excellent
opportunity to address the related methodological issue of
management fees. Because it is crucial to the success of asset
management that management fees for PHAs be set at appropriate
levels, the Committee directs HUD to include the topic of
management fees in the meeting required by the Final Rule in
2009.
In addition, the Committee is aware that HUD is undertaking
an administrative reform initiative to examine and possibly
revise regulations and guidance related to public housing. This
initiative will be particularly important as it coincides with
the implementation of asset management. The Committee supports
this initiative and encourages the Department to solicit input
from a variety of stakeholders in this critical effort.
The Committee instructs the HUD Inspector General to
investigate the implementation of asset management, especially
the issue of management fees, and to report its findings to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15,
2008.
The Committee also continues a provision, carried in prior
years, prohibiting funds from being used for section 9(k)
activities.
The Committee is concerned about reports that some
Public Housing Authorities are requiring residents to
declaw their pet cats, although HUD regulations do not
contain such a requirement. Declawing is a painful
procedure for pets which is almost never medically or
behaviorally necessary. The Committee urges HUD to
notify all PHAs that declawing is not required in
public housing under HUD policy. The Committee further
encourages HUD to consider adding an additional
provision to section 960.707(c) of HUD's regulations
(24 C.F.R. 960.707(c)) that would prohibit PHAs from
requiring declawing.
Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
(Hope VI)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $99,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... -99,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 120,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +21,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +219,000,000
The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing
new affordable housing, the program provides PHAs with the
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the
facility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee rejects the budget request for no new funding
for HUD's Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
program (HOPE VI) and provides $120,000,000 for the HOPE VI
program for fiscal year 2008, $21,000,000 above last year's
enacted level and $219,000,000 above the budget request.
Language proposed to rescind funds appropriated for fiscal year
2007 is not included.
The HOPE VI program grew out of the findings and
recommendations made by the National Commission on Severely
Distressed Public Housing. In 1992, the Commission reported
that many public housing developments were plagued by crime,
limited neighborhood employment opportunities, crumbling and
unsafe physical infrastructure, and federal programs that did
little to help residents.
In response to the Commission's report, the HOPE VI program
(also known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration program
from 1993 to 1998) was created in fiscal year 1993 to
revitalize severely distressed public housing developments and
improve the quality of life for public housing residents. HOPE
VI program funds are used to leverage outside investment and
replace severely distressed public housing with new mixed
income developments, revitalize and improve surrounding
neighborhoods, reduce poverty, and provide community and
support services for public housing residents.
Since its inception, $5,830,000,000 in HOPE VI
revitalization grants have been awarded to public housing
authorities (PHAs). According to an analysis of HUD data by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS), from inception to June
2004, HOPE VI grantees planned to demolish 134,572 units of
public housing, and rebuild or renovate 94,725 units of new
housing.
The Committee strongly supports continued funding for the
HOPE VI program. The Committee believes that the federal
government should continue to demolish severely distressed
public housing that is unsafe and often uninhabitable and
replace it with affordable housing units through the assistance
of programs like HOPE VI.
Completed HOPE VI projects have been credited with helping
transform and revitalize communities across the United States.
Studies have linked HOPE VI communities with improved living
environments for residents, reduced crime, and better
employment opportunities.
The Committee remains concerned, however, about the slow
expenditure of HOPE VI funds, especially among some of the
earliest grantees, and insists that HUD take a much more
proactive role in ensuring that HOPE VI funds are obligated and
that projects are completed in a timely fashion. In that
regard, the Committee strongly believes that HUD bears a
significant responsibility to facilitate these projects to
their successful completion. HUD's role does not end with the
selection of HOPE VI grantees.
The Committee notes that under the HOPE VI authorizing law,
the Secretary may use up to 2 percent of appropriated funds for
technical assistance or contract expertise. The Committee
disagrees with HUD's decision to eliminate technical assistance
to most HOPE VI grantees, except in cases where the grantee is
at-risk. For example, HUD previously assigned each new grantee
a private sector expert in finance and real estate development,
but stopped this practice in fiscal year 2001. The Committee
believes that technical assistance can be an immensely valuable
tool to help smaller communities around the country manage
their HOPE VI projects. HUD should actively help HOPE VI
grantees succeed by providing proactive technical assistance
before they become at-risk.
The Committee expects HUD to be a better partner in helping
communities rehabilitate and revitalize their distressed public
housing and directs HUD to issue its fiscal year 2008 HOPE VI
Notice of Funding Availability within 60 days of enactment and
to provide adequate technical assistance, both for new grantees
and for previous awardees whose projects are not yet completed,
particularly those awarded before 2001. The Committee also
directs HUD to report back to the Congress by February 15, 2008
on the status and living arrangements for displaced residents
of public housing units involved in HOPE VI projects, and the
number of HOPE VI projects located within a half mile of public
transit.
Further, as one of the most innovative programs in HUD, the
Committee believes that the large scale, catalytic
redevelopment that the HOPE VI Program makes possible is
especially well suited for a broad approach to green building,
which includes smart site planning near public transportation
and retail centers, water conservation, energy efficiency, and
the use of environmentally beneficial building materials.
Accordingly, the Committee strongly encourages HUD to require
new HOPE VI affordable housing projects to meet Green
Communities or the LEED for Homes building standards. Both
Green Communities and the LEED rating system are nationally
recognized standards for green building. The criteria were
developed by leading experts in building design and
construction, public health, smart growth and environmental
protection. Both Green Communities and LEED for Homes also
provide strong incentives to locate affordable housing close to
public transportation, which is a priority for the Committee.
Native American Housing Block Grants
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $623,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 626,965,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 626,965,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +3,265,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides
funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing
Entities (TDHE) to address housing needs within their
communities. The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating
requirements and capital needs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $626,965,000 for the Native
American Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block
Grant Fund. This is the same as the budget request and
$3,265,000 more than the enacted amount in fiscal year 2007.
In 2003, when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data, HUD
shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula
distribution of funds from single-race to multi-race. The
Committee continues language from last year instructing HUD to
distribute funds on the basis of single race or multi race
data, which ever is the higher amount for each recipient.
Recognizing that the shift to multi-race data has adversely
impacted many Native American tribes, the Committee directs GAO
to conduct a study to analyze the impact of these funding
changes and report its findings to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008.
Of the amounts made available under this heading:
--$1,831,000 is included for Section 601 loan
guarantees. However, the Department is advised that
loan level activity must be monitored to ensure that
sufficient grant funds are available as collateral for
new loans;
--$3,465,000 is for Technical Assistance training and
associated travel; and
--$148,500 is transferred to the Department Salary
and Expenses account.
The Committee is concerned about HUD's slow expenditure of
Technical Assistance grants in this account and directs HUD to
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
February 1, 2008 its plans for providing technical assistance
to the Indian tribes and the Tribally Designated Housing
Entities. It is clear to the Committee that HUD has not made a
serious effort to build tribal capacity and technical expertise
to carry out affordable housing programs. HUD should be far
more proactive in working with the Indian communities to
address their needs and is directed to prepare a report to
Congress on this issue by March 15, 2008.
Additionally, the Committee expects the Department to
continue to provide resources to the National American Indian
Housing Council, if authorized.
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $8,727,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 5,940,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,727,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +2,787,000
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
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 $8,727,000 for this program, the
same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, and $2,787,000
above the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $299,211 is
for technical assistance.
The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditures in
formula grants and directs HUD to award these funds in a more
efficient, effective manner. The Committee directs HUD to
submit a letter to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2008 on the status of grants
expended in this account.
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee fund Program Account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Program account:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $6,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 7,450,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
Limitation on direct loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $251,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 367,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 367,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +116,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................
Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,450,000 in new credit subsidy
for the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $1,450,000 above
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The Committee strongly supports the program of loan
guarantees for the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of
single-family homes on trust or restricted lands. Of the
amounts made available, $248,000 is transferred to Salaries and
Expenses.
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Program account:......................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $891,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 1,044,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,044,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +153,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
Limitation on direct Loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $35,714,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 41,504,255
Recommended in the bill............................... 41,504,255
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +5,790,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008..................
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to
provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and
their families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private, nonprofit
organizations experienced in the planning and in the
development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians for the
purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of single-family
homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to
private sources of financing that would otherwise not be
available because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian Home
Lands.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,044,000 for this program, the
same amount as requested and $153,000 above fiscal year 2007 to
guarantee a total loan volume of $41,504,255, the full amount
requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to
Salaries and Expenses for administrative expenses.
The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditure of
credit subsidy in this account. In this regard, the Committee
directs the Department to submit a plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008 that details
HUD's plan to increase the efficiency and utilization of this
program.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $286,110,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 300,100,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 300,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +13,990,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by
formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the
basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported
to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of
funding is distributed through a national competition.
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved
Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends
$300,100,000, an increase of $13,990,000 over the enacted
levels for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget
request. Within the total amount provided, $1,485,000 is for
technical assistance, training and oversight as requested and
$1,485,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund. Within
the funds provided, the Department should continue to give
priority to creating new housing opportunities for persons with
AIDS.
The Committee continues language which requires the
Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive housing
contracts previously funded under the national competition,
which meet all program requirements, before awarding new
competitive grants.
Since the Committee has not received information on HUD's
proposal to change the funding formula for the HOPWA program,
HUD is directed to continue to use the current formula in
awarding grants. While the Committee recognizes the value in
evaluating a formula that is twenty years old, this is an issue
best determined with input from a variety of stakeholders, and
should not be undertaken in a budget request.
RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $16,830,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 16,830,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +16,830,000
This account provides funding to rural non-profit
organizations, community development corporations, Indian
tribes, State housing finance agencies, State economic
development and Federally recognized community development
agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $16,830,000 for the Rural Housing
and Economic Development account, the same as the enacted level
for fiscal year 2007 and $16,830,000 above the budget request.
The Committee does not agree that the activities of this
account are best performed through the Community Development
Block Grant or the HOME programs.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,771,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 3,036,570,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,180,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +408,100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +1,143,430,000
The Community Development Fund provides funding to State
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out
community and economic development activities under various
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $4,180,000,000 for the
Community Development Fund account, an increase of $408,100,000
from the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and an increase of
$1,143,430,000 above the fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Of the amounts made available:
--$3,929,300,000 is for the formula grants and the
state share. HUD is instructed to use the same
methodology as used in fiscal year 2007 to distribute
these funds;
--$62,000,000 is for the Native American Housing and
Economic Development Block Grant;
--$160,000,000 is for economic development initiative
activities and $20,000,000 is for neighborhood
initiative activities;
--$1,584,000 is for the working capital fund; and
--$7,100,000 is for insular areas.
The Committee does not include funds, nor is the Department
authorized to use funds for the proposed Challenge Grants.
Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the Committee intends to
require that all Economic Development Initiative and
Neighborhood Initiative funds awarded to grantees will be
matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee. This is an
effort to stretch limited Federal funds to projects that have
strong community support.
The Committee includes modified language making technical
corrections to certain targeted economic development initiative
and neighborhood initiative grants funded under this heading in
prior Appropriations Acts.
The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic
Development Initiative program as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.056
The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood
Initiatives program as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.057
Additionally, the Committee has maintained the formula
program at the highest possible level for fiscal year 2008. The
Committee continues to believe that effort has been complicated
by what can only be described as the Administration's annual
arbitrary cut to the CDBG program. The Administration has
justified the proposed reduced funding level as part of a
reform of the program to be coupled with a change to the
formula for distributing funds. Yet despite months of lead time
prior to the submission of the Administration's budget request,
it has failed to deliver a reform proposal in time to be
considered and acted on by the relevant committees of
jurisdiction.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Program cost:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $3,713,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,713,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +3,713,000
Limitation on Guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $137,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 137,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +137,500,000
The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic
development projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,713,000 for the Section 108
loan Guarantees program, the same as the enacted level of
fiscal year 2007 and $3,713,000 above the level in the budget
request. The Committee does not agree that the activities of
this account are best performed through the Community
Development Block Grant program.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $9,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... - - -
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +9,900,000
The Brownfields Redevelopment 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
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to
productive uses with an emphasis on creating substantial
numbers of jobs for lower-income people in physically and
economically distressed neighborhoods.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $9,900,000 for the Brownfields
Redevelopment program, the same as the level enacted for fiscal
year 2007 and $9,900,000 above the amount in the budget
request. The Committee does not agree that the activities
funded under the Brownfields Redevelopment program are
duplicative of EPA programs, and encourages HUD to address the
problem of slow expenditure of funds. As one of the only
programs in HUD to address commercial and industrial sites, the
Committee views the Brownfields Redevelopment program as a
vital part of this Committee's efforts to address the
environmental sustainability of facilities built and
rehabilitated with HUD funds.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,757,250,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 1,966,640,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,757,250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -209,390,000
The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula
allocations to provide grants to States, units of local
government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for the purpose of
expanding the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction.
Upon receipt, State and local governments develop a
comprehensive housing affordability strategy that enables them
to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing,
or to provide rental assistance to eligible families.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,757,250,000 for activities
funded under this account, the same as the level enacted in
fiscal year 2007 and $209,390,000 below the budget request.
Funds are provided as follows:
--Formula Grants: $1,701,398,000 for formula grants
for participating jurisdictions (States, units of local
government and consortia of units of local government)
and insular areas, $24,750,000 above the amount enacted
for fiscal year 2007 and $198,044,000 below the amount
requested. Of the amount provided, pursuant to the
authorizing statute, at least 15 percent of each
participating jurisdiction's allocation is reserved for
housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs);
--HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $9,900,000 for
technical assistance activities for State and local
participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The
Committee notes that the HOME statute authorizes
technical assistance to be provided through contracts
with eligible non-profit intermediaries as well as with
other organizations recommended by participating
jurisdictions and therefore directs HUD to use
$3,500,000 to contract with qualified non-profit
intermediaries to provide CHDO, technical assistance in
fiscal year 2008;
--Insular Areas: $3,382,000;
--Working Capital Fund: no less than $990,000 for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the
development and modification of information technology
systems that serve programs and activities under
Community Planning and Development.
--American Dream Down Payment Assistance Initiative:
funds are not included, as it is duplicative of
eligible activities under the HOME Program and does not
necessitate a set-aside. Participating jurisdictions
are already performing down-payment assistance for low-
income families under the HOME formula grants, and the
Committee encourages them to continue these efforts;
and
--Housing Counseling: $41,580,000.
SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $49,390,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 69,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 59,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +10,310,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -10,000,000
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds
make competitive grants to national and regional nonprofit
organizations and consortia that have experience in providing
or facilitating self-help housing opportunities. Grant funds
are used to develop housing for low-income families and to
develop the capacity of nonprofit organizations for such
development. 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 $59,700,000 for the Self Help and
Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs
that previously have been funded as set asides within the
Community Development Fund. This is $10,310,000 above the
fiscal year 2007 enacted funding level and $10,000,000 below
the budget request.
Programs within this account provide a critical role
promoting affordable housing and the ability to maximize the
federal investment in these activities; a role that is all the
more critical in the context of fiscal restraint and
demonstrated results. Therefore language is included that
provides:
--$27,710,000 for the Self Help Homeownership
Program;
--$31,000,000 for the National Community Development
Initiative (NCDI) for LISC and Enterprise Foundation;
--$990,000 for Technical Assistance.
The Committee also expects HUD to continue to provide
resources to the Housing Assistance Council, the National
Council of La Raza, the National American Indian Housing
Council, and Habitat for Humanity International, if authorized.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,441,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 1,585,990,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,560,990,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +119,390,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -25,000,000
The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate
rehabilitation (Single Room Occupancy) program; and (4) the
shelter plus care program. This account also supports
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives
demonstration program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at
$1,560,990,000, an increase of $119,390,000 above the enacted
level for 2007 and $25,000,000 less than the budget request.
The recommendation includes no less than $320,000,000 for full
funding of the costs associated with the renewal of all
expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language is included in
the bill requiring funds to be made available for this purpose.
Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative is not included
and the consolidation proposal, including its version of the
Samaritan bonus, is not adopted by this Committee, as that is a
proposal best considered by the authorizing committee. The
recommendation also includes $10,395,000 for technical
assistance and data analysis, and no less than $2,475,000 for
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for development and
modifications of information technology systems that serve
activities under Community Planning and Development. The
Committee directs the Department to ensure to the largest
extent possible that funding is made available for all eligible
activities including permanent housing, transitional housing,
and supportive service.
Language is included in the bill that: (1) requires not
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding
amounts made available for renewals under the shelter plus care
program, be used for permanent housing; (2) requires the
renewal of all expiring shelter plus care contracts; (3)
requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for
social services activities; (4) requires all homeless programs
to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social
services, and employment programs; and (5) provides two year
availability for obligation of funds provided under this
account, except that no year availability is provided for the
portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract
requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program.
Housing Programs
PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $5,976,417,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 5,813,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,479,810,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +503,393,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +666,810,000
The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides
a rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific
housing unit so that the properties themselves, rather than the
individual living in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts
provided in this account include funding for the renewal of
expiring project-based contracts, including Section 8, moderate
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts,
amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and
administrative costs for performance-based, project-based
Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with
administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy
contracts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides a total of $6,479,810,000 for the
annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less
than $238,728,000 but not to exceed $286,230,000 is for the
costs of contract administrators and $1,960,000 is for the
Working Capital Fund. This funding level is $503,393,000 above
the enacted level for fiscal year 2007 and is $666,810,000
above the budget request. The Committee's recommendation
includes the use of project-based recaptures for the renewal of
project-based contracts and amendments as well as for
performance-based contract administrators in 2008.
The Committee is deeply concerned about HUD's inability to
calculate the actual funding needs of this program. Based on
recent calculations on expiring contracts and the true annual
voucher cost, the Department has put the Committee in the
difficult position of correcting an undefined, seemingly
unlimited shortfall. The Department is either unable or
unwilling to report its recaptures in this account and seems to
have lost track of its contracts. As this program is based on
legal contracts, it seems reasonable that HUD should be able to
calculate the true need of this program. The Committee
understands that the Department has engaged a contractor to
assess the needs of this program and anticipates getting
accurate information from this report. The Department is
instructed to provide the results of that report to the
Committee and to discuss the results within one week of the
issuance of the report.
The Committee has funded the contract administrators at the
highest level possible given the shortfall in the renewals
account and has given HUD the ability to put additional
resources into this account as the anticipated report
identifies recaptures. The Committee recognizes the importance
of the contract administrators and urges HUD to fully fund
these administrators through recaptures. The program will not
be successful without competent administrators, but as HUD was
unable to identify the true need of either the administrator or
renewal accounts, the Committee has made the best possible
decision in light of imperfect information.
The Committee also looks to the recently-released GAO
report, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Update
Its Policies and Procedures to Keep Pace with the Changing
Housing Market (GAO-07-290)'' for recommendations to the agency
on improving this program. The Committee encourages HUD to
implement the reforms suggested by GAO and looks forward to
discussing these reforms with the Department when the
aforementioned report on the needs of the program is released.
The Department is directed to submit supporting
documentation accompanying the fiscal year 2009 project-based
Section 8 budget request. This documentation is to include a
project-by-project analysis that verifies the funding request
for renewals and amendments.
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $734,580,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 575,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 734,580,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +159,580,000
The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of
housing intended for low income elderly people. In addition,
the program provides project-based rental assistance contracts
(PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under
the program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $734,580,000 for the Section 202
program for fiscal year 2008, the same as the level enacted for
fiscal year 2007 and $159,580,000 above the request for fiscal
year 2008. The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
--$603,900,000 for new capital and project rental
assistance contracts (PRAC);
--$44,550,000 for one year renewals of expiring PRAC
payments;
--$59,400,000 for service coordinators and the
continuation of congregate services grants;
--$24,750,000 for grants to convert section 202
projects to assisted living facilities; the Committee
intends that the Assisted Living Conversion Program
funds be made available to cover the cost of conversion
of existing affordable housing sites to assisted
living, substantial capital repairs and emergency
capital repair grants, not just conversions and
emergency repairs; and
--No less than $1,980,000 to be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund to support the development of and
modifications to information technology systems, which
support programs and activities for the elderly.
The Committee continues language relating to the initial
contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this
heading. Language is also included to allow these funds to be
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's Real Estate
Assessment Center (REAC).
The Committee acknowledges that HUD has requested funding
for a mixed financing demonstration project, combining Section
202 funding with low income housing tax credit allocations. The
Committee recognizes that HUD already has the authority to
award mixed finance projects, therefore the Committee has not
set aside separate funding for the demonstration. Like HUD, the
Committee believes that the use of tax credits with Section 202
will result in a greater number of affordable senior housing
units built, but that the complexity of mixed financing and
delays involved have limited its use. The Committee recommends
that where mixed finance Section 202 projects are awarded, that
HUD permit the state allocating agency to process the Section
202 funding, subject to HUD's final approval provided within a
specified time frame.
The Committee is concerned that there continue to be delays
in the distribution of project rental assistance (PRAC
payments) which provide operational subsidies, affecting the
financial and physical soundness of the properties. The
Committee encourages HUD to assess the effectiveness of its
internal systems and processes for estimating and allocating
PRAC funds. The Committee directs the Department to submit a
plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
March 15, 2008 detailing the status of PRAC funding.
Given the demographic trends of the nation, and the studies
recently released by Policy Development and Research, the
Committee recognizes the immense value of and need for the
Section 202 program and is disappointed that the Department
continually proposes cuts to this program. The Congressionally-
mandated Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility
Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century stated in its 2002 final
report that an additional 730,000 rent-assisted units will be
needed by 2020 for limited income seniors 65 and older. But the
Section 202 program is able to fund fewer and fewer units each
year: 5,500 units in fiscal year 2004; 4,700 units in 2005; and
4,300 units in 2006. The Department's request expects to
support the construction of 3,000 new affordable senior units
across the nation, the lowest amount ever proposed in one year.
In addition, the Joint Center for Housing found that for every
unit of affordable housing built for seniors, two are lost
either by the conversion of affordable housing to market-rate
housing or by sponsors of Section 202 housing opting out of the
program when their contracts expire. Finally, for every one
unit of elderly housing that becomes available, 10 seniors are
on the waiting list, according to the AARP. The Committee is
dedicated to the current and future needs of the nation's
senior citizens. The Department should be, as well.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $236,610,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 125,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 236,610,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +111,610,000
The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811)
program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations
with capital grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation
or construction of supportive housing for disabled persons and
provides project-based rental assistance (PRAC) to support
operational costs for such units.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $236,610,000 for Section 811
activities, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and
$111,610,000 above the budget request. In doing so, the
Committee rejects the proposal to all but eliminate funding for
the construction of facilities that accommodate low income
disabled individuals. The Committee finds that, in fact, there
is universal agreement at all levels of analysis that facility
construction is needed for this program in fiscal year 2008.
The recommendation allocates funding as follows:
--Up to $145,875,000 for capital grants and PRAC;
--$74,745,000 for renewals or amendments of expiring
tenant-based rental assistance;
--$15,000,000 for PRAC renewals;
--$990,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund
for the development and maintenance of information
technology systems for programs and activities for
housing for persons with disabilities programs; and
--No funds are provided for ``mainstream'' vouchers
in fiscal year 2008.
The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be
used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD's REAC program
office.
The Committee has included no funding for new 811 tenant-
based assistance. This is based on continuing concerns
regarding HUD's mismanagement of the mainstream tenant-based
program. The Committee is concerned that funds that were
appropriated for this program for fiscal years 2005 and 2006
were never actually awarded to applicant agencies in response
to the Notices of Funding Availability. This is also in
recognition of HUD's failure to issue programmatic guidance to
ensure that rental assistance is targeted to people with
disabilities in need of supportive housing. In addition, HUD
has performed ineffective oversight of local agencies'
obligation to ensure that rental assistance remains targeted to
the intended population upon turnover.
The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2008, the number of
non-elderly disabled vouchers that are still in circulation and
are being used by non-elderly disabled individuals.
HOUSING COUNSELING
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... $50,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... - - -
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -50,000,000
Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and
the homeless.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate
account for housing counseling activities, but instead has
provided $41,580,000 for this activity as a set-aside within
the HOME Investments Partnership Program account.
FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections
in excess of the established basic rents for units in Section
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible
Subsidy Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset
flexible subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures
to support affordable housing projects.
The Committee's recommendation includes language identical
to language carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds
derived from rental collections which were in excess of
allowable rent levels to be returned to project owners only for
the purposes of rehabilitating and renovating those properties.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................ 13,000,000
Budget request, 2008.................................. 16,000,000
Offsetting collections................................ 16,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 16,000,000
Offsetting collections................................ 16,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured
homes.
All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs
of administering the Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends up to $16,000,000 for the
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust
Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as
the budget request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007
enacted level. Language contained in previous Acts is continued
to ensure that the net expenditures do not exceed fee
collections at the end of the fiscal year.
In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the
Department to collect fees from program participants for the
dispute resolution and installation programs. These fees are to
be deposited into the trust fund and may be used by the
Department subject to the overall cap placed on the account.
OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $26,136,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 27,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 27,600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,464,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Rental Housing Assistance account provides amendment
funding for housing assisted under a variety of HUD housing
programs.
RECISSION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $- - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... -27,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... -27,600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -27,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
Federal Housing Administration
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitations of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.................. $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $351,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000
Recommended in the bill.......................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007.............. - - - - - - - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008............. - - - - - - - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) mutual mortgage
insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage
insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance
funds. This program account covers unsubsidized programs,
primarily the single-family home mortgage program, which is the
largest of all the FHA programs. The cooperative housing
insurance program provides mortgages for cooperative housing
projects of more than five units that are occupied by members
of a cooperative housing corporation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments in the MMI program account: $185,000,000,000 for
loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The
recommendation also includes $428,850,000 for administrative
expenses, of which $347,500,000 is transferred to Salaries and
Expenses, and $4,000,000 is transferred to the Office of
Inspector General. In addition, $77,400,000 is provided for
non-overhead administrative contract expenses, including
$5,000,000 for consumer education and of which $25,600,000 is
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and
modifications to information technology systems that serve
programs or activities under the Office of Housing or the
Federal Housing Administration. The Committee continues
language, as requested, appropriating additional administrative
expenses in certain circumstances.
The Committee has also lifted the cap on the number of Home
Equity Conversion Mortgages that the Department may issue until
September 30, 2008. In addition, the Committee has lifted the
multifamily loan limit in order to permit more FHA loans to
occur in fiscal year 2008. However, the Committee has not
carried several other proposals of the Administration, as the
Committee on Financial Services is in the process of
modernizing FHA and is the best arbiter of these complicated
issues.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation of Limitations of Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..... $50,000,000 $45,000,000,000 $229,086,000 $8,712,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000
Recommended in the bill............. 50,000,000 45,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,712,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008 - - - +10,000,000,000 - - - +112,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) general and
special risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17
different programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a
wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single
and multi-family loans, including loans for property
improvements, manufactured housing, multi-family rental
housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals,
group practice facilities, and nursing homes. The SRI fund
includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining
urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance,
mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages for
experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would
not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing
counseling.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program
account as requested: $45,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and
$50,000,000 for direct loans.
As requested, the recommendation includes $8,712,000 in
direct appropriations for credit subsidy. The recommendation
also includes $229,086,000 for administrative expenses, of
which $209,286,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses and
$19,800,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General.
An additional $78,111,000 is provided for non-overhead
administrative expenses, of which no less than $10,692,000 is
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and
modifications to information technology systems that serve
activities under the Office of Housing or the Federal Housing
Administration.
The Committee recognizes the importance of below market
sales of HUD multi-family properties and loans in foreclosure
through first refusal and negotiated purchase rights. The
Committee believes that the ability of local governments to
exercise their statutory right of first refusal is an essential
tool to preserving affordability and improving the condition of
properties that have often fallen into disrepair. When valuing
properties or loans for a noncompetitive sale to States or
units of local governments, the Committee directs the
Department to consider, but not be limited to, industry
standard appraisal practices. The Department must take into
consideration affordability restrictions and the cost of
repairs needed to bring the property to at least minimum State
and local code standards. Further, the Committee directs the
Department to conduct a study on the impact that these sales
have on the FHA fund by March 14, 2008.
Government National Mortgage Association
GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Limitation of guaranteed loans:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... $200,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. 100,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 200,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007............... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.............. +100,000,000,000
Administrative expenses:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... $10,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. 11,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................... 10,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007............... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.............. -300,000
The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services
program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on
securities issued by private service institutions such as
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and
savings and loan associations that assemble pools of mortgages,
and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, investment
proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage loans.
Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in the
housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life
insurance companies, and individuals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as
requested, the same as the level provided in fiscal year 2007.
The Committee also recommends $10,700,000 for administrative
expenses to be transferred to Salaries and Expenses.
The Committee once again rejects the budget proposal to
charge issuers an upfront fee to offset the administrative
expenses of the program. No detailed explanation has been
provided to justify this change from prior years or its likely
adverse effect on volume and affordable rental housing
production. Raising program costs can only diminish the
contribution of GNMA in expanding lower cost housing
opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide shortage
of affordable housing, and the goal of increased homeownership,
imposing this change to the way GNMA conducts business makes
little sense.
Policy Development and Research
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $50,087,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 65,040,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 58,087,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +8,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2007.................. -6,953,000
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing,
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions
are carried out internally through contracts with industry,
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions
and through agreements with State and local governments and
other Federal agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $58,087,000 for the Office of
Policy Development and Research. This is $8,000,000 above the
level of funding as enacted for fiscal year 2007 and $6,953,000
below the budget request. Of the amounts made available,
language is included to designate:
--$29,693,000 for basic research;
--$22,394,000 for grants to institutions of higher
education funded under Section 107 including Alaska
Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving
Institutions, tribal colleges and universities,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Hispanic Serving Institutions. In addition, the
Committee is concerned that the Asian American and
Pacific Islander (AAPI) community has significantly
higher rates of poverty and rent burden than national
average. The Committee encourages HUD to investigate
ways to serve this community through the grants awarded
under Section 107 or the University Partnership Program
and to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations regarding the Department's plans to do
so; and
--$5,000,000 for the PATH program. The Committee does
not continue language that exempts 50 percent of the
funds provided from competition. All funds are to be
competitively awarded, and the Committee instructs that
the PATH funds will be directed toward energy
efficiency in low-income housing. It is appropriate
that all research initiatives focus on low-and
moderate-income populations, not the general population
or the market to which most housing development is
geared. The Committee agrees with the proposal to
administer this program within Policy Development and
Research.
The Committee believes that the preservation of affordable
housing should become an integral part of transit oriented
development policies. The Committee commends both the Federal
Transit Administration and Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for jointly sponsoring the recently published
study ``Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing
Opportunities Near Transit.'' The Committee believes the study
provides a number of valuable recommendations for federal,
state, and local policy makers to promote affordable housing
near transit. On the federal level, the Committee hopes that
the cooperation between FTA and HUD on the study will be the
beginning of a new partnership on transit oriented development.
Accordingly, the Committee includes $1,000,000 within the funds
provided for the FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency
working group on transit oriented development and affordable
housing. The new working group should follow up on
recommendations made in the jointly sponsored HUD and FTA study
mentioned above. The working group should also create an action
plan with specific recommendations on how HUD and the FTA can
improve policy coordination and provide incentives through
existing programs to further promote affordable housing near
transit corridors. The HUD and FTA action plan for mixed income
affordable housing near transit should be submitted to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six months
of enactment.
Additionally, the Committee requires the Office of Policy
Development and Research, via research and the PATH program, to
investigate ways to incorporate green, sustainable housing
construction and rehabilitation practices in HUD's programs.
Much like PATH has encouraged the Department to incorporate
steel into its construction programs, the Committee encourages
the Office of Policy Development and Research to investigate
green building and report on how new, sustainable technologies
can be incorporated into each of HUD's programs.
The Committee is disappointed that HUD has refused to share
information about the Moving to Opportunity program with
scholars and researchers and instructs HUD to make this
information available while protecting confidentiality. The
results of this demonstration are critical to future policy
decisions in the Housing Choice Voucher program, and should be
scrutinized by a variety of academic researchers.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $45,540,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 45,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 45,540,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... - - -
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +540,000
The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of
housing and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement
policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within
the jurisdiction of State and local fair housing agencies. The
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit
organizations, State and local government agencies and other
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $45,540,000 for this
account, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and
$540,000 above the Administration's budget request. Of this
amount, $24,820,000 is for FHAP and $20,180,000 is for FHIP.
The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds,
delineated by each program and activity.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $150,480,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 116,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 130,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -20,480,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +14,000,000
The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants
to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction
activities in housing occupied by low income families. The
program also provides technical assistance, undertakes research
and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and
develops technical guidance and regulations in cooperation with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for this account,
$14,000,000 above the budget request. Amounts provided are to
be allocated as follows:
--$92,600,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control
grant program to provide assistance to State and local
governments and Native American tribes for lead-based
paint abatement in private low income housing;
--$8,712,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination
Action Program), which provides competitive grants to
non-profit organizations and the private sector for
activities, which leverage funds for local lead hazard
control programs;
--$5,742,000 for technical assistance and support to
State and local agencies and private property owners;
and
--$8,712,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for
competitive grants for research, standards development,
and education and outreach activities to address lead-
based paint poisoning and other housing-related
diseases and hazards.
--$14,234,000 for the Lead Hazard Demonstration
Project. While the Committee recognizes the value of
this demonstration project, budgetary constraints limit
the amount of funding the Committee can dedicate to
this project.
The Committee continues language delegating the authority
and responsibility for performing environmental review for the
Healthy Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies
projects and programs to governmental entities that are
familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and
priorities.
The Committee reminds the Department that all funding
provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as
required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and Section 305 of
the Administrative Provisions under this title.
Management and Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $581,108,000
Transfers FHA/GNMA.................................... 574,285,000
Total............................................... 1,155,393,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 654,092,000
Transfers............................................. 563,908,000
Total............................................... 1,218,000,000
Recommended in this bill.............................. 642,730,000
Transfers............................................. 568,649,650
Total............................................... 1,211,379,650
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007..................... +55,986,650
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................... -6,620,350
This account finances all salaries and related costs
associated with administering the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, except for the Office of
Inspector General and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight. These activities include housing, mortgage credit
and secondary market programs, community planning and
development programs, departmental management, legal services,
field direction and administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends total funding of $1,211,379,650
for the salaries and expenses of the Department. This is
$55,986,650 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount and
$6,620,350 below the budget request.
The Department is limited to the object class levels that
are described in the fiscal year 2008 Congressional Budget
Submission. This is the distribution that HUD must use unless
changes are granted as part of the Department's Operating Plan.
Language is included to allow the Department to transfer up
to $15,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses to the Working
Capital Fund after receipt and approval of an Operating Plan
change detailing the uses of the transfers and the object
classes being reduced in this account.
Funding for indemnities is at the budget request level but
is further limited to non-programmatic litigation and is
restricted to the payment of attorney fees only. Program-
related litigation must be paid from the individual program
office Salaries and Expenses allocation. The budget submission
must include program-related litigation costs as a separate
line item request.
Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.--All
Departments within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction are required
to submit operating plans and reprogramming letters and
reorganization proposals for Committee approval. HUD is
reminded that operating plans or reprogramming requirements
apply to any reallocation of resources totaling more than
$500,000 among any program, project or activity as well as to
any significant reorganization within offices or the proposed
creation or elimination of any program or office, regardless of
the dollar amount involved and any reorganization, regardless
of the dollar amount involved. Object class changes above
$500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the
accompanying report, the approved level for any program,
project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program,
project, or activity in the Department's annual detailed
Congressional submission. These requirements apply to all funds
provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make
any necessary changes during fiscal year 2008 to its current
procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the
necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied
to other agencies funded in the bill.
Budget Submission.--The Committee expects the Department's
fiscal year 2009 submission to be submitted in the identical
format and continues its direction that strategic planning
documents, formats or materials are not to be incorporated into
the submission. The Committee continues language under General
Provisions setting forth such requirements.
Language is included in the bill, similar to language
carried in prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from
various accounts for Salaries and Expenses and which requires
the Department to implement appropriate funds control and
financial management procedures.
Working Capital Fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $195,356,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 220,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 125,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -70,356,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -95,000,000
The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide
information technology systems, and for the continuing
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific
information technology systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee remains concerned about HUD's information
technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD's and
Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD's
programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD's information
systems to provide the information necessary to assess program
performance and ensure effective resource management. The
Committee recommends $125,000,000 in direct appropriation for
the Working Capital Fund to support Department-wide information
technology system activities, $70,356,000 below the fiscal year
2007 level and $95,000,000 below the budget request. In
addition to the direct appropriation for Department-wide
systems, funds are transferred from various accounts to be used
exclusively for program-specific information technology
requirements.
The Committee has included language that precludes the use
of these or any other funds appropriated previously to the
Working Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the
Working Capital Fund that would be used or transferred to any
other entity in HUD or elsewhere for the purposes of
implementing the Administration's ``e-Gov'' initiative without
the Committee's approval in HUD's operating plan. The Committee
directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and
activities should not be reduced or eliminated in order to fund
other activities inside and outside of HUD without the
expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute
or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in
legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change.
The Department is advised that the Committee is concerned
about HUD's insufficient and ineffective information systems,
but the Committee is not assured by the budget submission that
additional appropriations will improve the situation. Until a
thorough analysis is done of the current systems and the true
needs of the Department are assessed, the Committee will not
appropriate funds for yet more inefficient information systems.
The Inspector General is instructed to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the status of current
information systems and future needs by June 1, 2008.
Office of Inspector General
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriation FHA funds TotalAppropriation, fiscal year 2007................................. $88,853,000 $23,760,000 $112,613,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008................................ 88,240,000 23,760,000 112,000,000
Recommended in the bill......................................... 90,000,000 23,760,000 113,760,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007............................. +1,147,000 - - - +1,147,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008............................ - - - - - - +1,760,000
The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide
audit and investigative functions to identify and correct
management and administrative deficiencies that create
conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud,
and mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit,
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation,
award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts.
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations.
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities
involving programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $113,760,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, an increase of $1,147,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2007 and $1,760,000 above the budget
request. Of this amount, $23,760,000 is derived from transfers
from Federal Housing Administration funds.
Language is included in the bill which: (1) designates
amounts available to the Inspector General from other accounts;
and (2) clarifies the authority of the Inspector General with
respect to certain personnel issues.
In the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the Committee
has made significant and necessary funding allocations to the
Section 8 and Public Housing programs. In order to ensure that
these increased allocations are spent efficiently and
effectively, the Committee has also provided additional funds
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee is
confident that the Inspector General can provide the oversight
necessary to ensure that this funding is properly utilized.
The Committee directs the IG to report on its audits and
investigative efforts either in place or currently planned,
related to the use of Departmental funds in the rebuilding
efforts in the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of the 2005
hurricanes. The Committee notes that the Community Development
Block Grant funds that were provided to the Gulf States have
been spent at a slow rate. The Committee requests that the IG
provide an update on their oversight on the allocation and
distribution of these funds no later than January 1, 2008.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Salaries and Expenses
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $66,150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 66,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 66,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... -150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -150,000
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided
enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In addition to
financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance
with affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for OFHEO, $150,000
below fiscal year 2007 and the budget request, to be derived
from fees assessed to the GSEs and deposited into the Federal
Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund.
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment
factors.
Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair
Housing Act.
Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain
States.
Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated
to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government
Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget
estimates.
Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and
agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years,
requiring submission of a spending plan for technical
assistance, training and management improvement activities
prior to the expenditure of funds.
Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to
provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and
excess funds in each departmental program and activity.
Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management
functions.
Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an
annual report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the number of Federally assisted units under
lease and the per unit cost of these units.
Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements
for the Department's annual congressional justification of
appropriations.
Section 213 continues language carried in previous years
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous
years for persons with disabilities upon turnover.
Section 214 relates to state authority regarding
participation on housing boards.
Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based
assistance in specific circumstances.
Section 216 continues language in previous acts specifying
the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan
recipients.
Section 217 continues language carried in previous years
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous
years for family unification upon turnover.
Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the
Section 8 program.
Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion
Mortgages until September 30, 2008.
Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The
Committee does not recommend several new administrative
provisions proposed in the budget to amend various housing
authorization statutes.
Section 222 continues language authorizing the Secretary to
waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot
project.
Section 223 continues language clarifying that the projects
selected by HUD for Section 202b assistance prior to December
1, 2003 are aslo eligible to use the limited partnership
ownership structure. No more than three commercial properties
are authorized to receive grants under section 202b of the
Housing Act of 1959.
Section 224 continues language requiring priority
consideration for Moving to Work Demonstration applications
from Santa Clara, San Jose and San Bernardino.
TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $5,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 6,150,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,150,000
Bill compared with:...................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +236,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for
developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications
Act. These guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities,
transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment
covered by these laws are readily accessible to and usable by
people with disabilities. The Access Board is also responsible
for developing standards under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information
technology used by Federal agencies. In addition, the Access
Board enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, and provides
training and technical assistance on the guidelines and
standards it develops.
The Access Board also has 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 the Election Assistance Commission develop
voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including
accessibility for people with disabilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,150,000 for the operations of
the Access Board, an increase of $236,000 over fiscal year 2007
and the same as the budget request.
Federal Maritime Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... 20,428,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 22,322,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 22,072,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +1,894,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -250,000
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in
1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the
regulation of international waterborne commerce of the United
States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and
bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that
vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility
to pay judgment for death or injury to passengers, or
nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. It
monitors the activities of ocean common carriers, who operate
in the U.S./foreign commerce to ensure just and reasonable
practices, maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement
program, monitors the laws and practices of foreign governments
which could have a discriminatory or other impacts on shipping
conditions in the U.S., among other activities. The principal
shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the Shipping Act
of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq.), the Foreign Shipping
Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq.), and
section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. app.
876).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $22,072,000 for the Federal
Maritime Commission, which is $1,644,000 above the amount
provided in fiscal year 2007 and $250,000 below the budget
request. The reduction below the budget request is due to
overall budget constraints and is implemented without
prejudice.
National Transportation Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $79,338,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 83,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 85,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +5,662,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. +2,000,000
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 effective April of 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 Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast
Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by FAA.
In addition, the NTSB operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn,
Virginia.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for salaries and
expenses, an increase of $5,662,000 above fiscal year 2007 and
$2,000,000 above the budget request. The NTSB had 424 employees
in fiscal year 2005 and has received funding to maintain a
staff level of 396 since fiscal year 2006. The additional
amount funds eleven safety critical staff, to result in a total
staffing level of 407. Furthermore, the Committee directs that
none of these additional funds shall be used for the Academy.
The Committee notes that NTSB violated and continues to be
in violation of the Antideficiency Act because it did not
obtain or have budget authority to cover the net present value
of the entire 20-year training center lease obligation at the
time the capital lease agreement was signed in 2001. To ensure
the NTSB can satisfy it contractual obligations, the Committee
includes language allowing the NTSB to use its fiscal year 2008
appropriation on the lease payments due in fiscal year 2008.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $116,820,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 119,800,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 119,800,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +2,980,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. - - -
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 working efficient and effective partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, community-based nonprofit entities, often referred
to as NeighborWorks organizations.
Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to
Neighborhood Housing Services of America (NHSA), the
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market. The mission
of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local
NeighborWorks organizations' revolving loan funds. These loans
are used to back securities that are placed with private sector
social investors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a funding level of $119,800,000
for fiscal year 2008, the same amount as the budget request and
an increase of $2,980,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2007
appropriation. The Committee commends the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation for its commitment to building green,
sustainable affordable housing and encourages the Corporation
to continue its technical assistance and grant activities in a
way that promotes more sustainable building practices in the
field of affordable housing.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007....................... $1,788,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008...................... 2,320,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2007................... +212,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2008.................. -320,000
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for operating expenses
of the Interagency Council on Homelessness, $212,000 above the
enacted amount for fiscal year 2007 and $320,000 below the
requested amount. The continued lack of cooperation between the
Council and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
remains a concern for the Committee. In addition, the failure
of the Administration to put forth a comprehensive funding plan
for the elimination of chronic homelessness which includes
other mainstream programs in multiple Departments indicates
that the Council is not being successful in developing a
government-wide response to this national problem. Therefore,
the Council is instructed to work closely with the Departments
that administer homeless assistance programs to develop
comprehensive policies that make more efficient use of Federal
dollars. While the Committee commends the Council for its role
in encouraging local jurisdictions to develop 10-year plans to
end homelessness, there must be a recognition that better
Federal coordination and collaboration will lead to more
effective strategies at the local level. As much, if not more,
time and energy must be spent to pull together Federal
resources in a complementary manner than extensive travel to
reach more and more small jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions
will benefit more from greater Federal coordination than from
plans that rely on poorly integrated sources of revenue at the
Federal and state levels. The Council must present to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than March 15,
2008 a comprehensive funding strategy that demonstrates that
the President's initiative to end chronic homelessness will
achieve its result within the 10-year timeframe originally
stated.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Section 401. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 402. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 403. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided
herein.
Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 405. The Committee continues the provision
specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the
establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the
reprogramming process.
Section 406. The Committee continues the provision
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain
available for certain purposes.
Section 407. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies and departments funded herein to report on
sole source contracts.
Section 408. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting Federal training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XXIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives states:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized
by law:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations in
Program Last year of Authorization last year of Amount of program
authorization level authorization or new fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations...................... 2007 8,064,000 8,374,217 8,176,606
Facilities and Equipment........ 2007 3,110,000 2,516,520 2,515,000
Research, Engineering and 2007 356,261 130,234 140,000
Development....................
Grants-in-Aid for Airports...... 2007 3,700,000 3,514,500 3,514,500
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and Operations........... 1998 -- -- 148,472
Railroad Research and 1998 20,758 -- 33,250
Development....................
Grants to the National Passenger 2002 955,000 826,476 1,350,000
Railroad Corp..................
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration:
Administrative Expenses......... n/a n/a n/a 18,130
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration:
Research and Development........ n/a n/a n/a 12,000
Surface Transportation Board........ 1998 12,000 13,850 26,495
Title II--Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Rental Assistance:
Section 8 Contract Renewals and 1994 8,446,173 5,458,106 6,386,810
Administrative Expenses........
Section 441 Contracts........... 1994 109,410 150,000 54,100
Section 8 Preservation, 1994 759,259 541,000 --
Protection, and Family
Unification....................
Contract Administrators......... -- -- -- 145,728
Public Housing Capital Fund..... 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,438,964
Public Housing Operating Fund... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,200,000
Native American Housing Block
Grants:
Native American Housing Block 2007 * SSAN 621,720 626,965
Grants.........................
Federal Guarantees.............. 2007 * SSAN 1,980 1,044
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.. 2007 * SSAN 6,000 7,450
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. 2005 -- 8,928,000 8,727
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan 2005 -- 992,000 1,010
Guarantee Fund.....................
Housing Opportunities for Persons 1994 156,300 156,000 300,100
with Aids..........................
Rural Housing and Economics -- -- -- 16,830
Development........................
Community Development Fund:
Community Development Block 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 3,951,900
Grant..........................
Economic Development Initiatives -- -- -- 160,000
Neighborhood Initiatives........ -- -- -- 20,000
HOME Program:
HOME Investment Partnership..... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,757,250
Downpayment Assistance 2007 200,000 24,750 --
Initiative.....................
HOPE VI............................. 2007 SSAN* 99,000 100,000
Brownfields Redevelopment........... -- -- -- 9,900
Self Help and Assisted Homeownership
Opportunity:
Capacity Building............... 1994 25,000 20,000 31,000
Housing Assistance Council...... -- -- -- --
Self-Help Homeownership 2000 -- 20,000 27,710
Opportunity Program............
National Housing Development -- -- -- --
Corporation....................
Homeless Assistance Grants...... 1994 465,774 599,000 1,560,990
Housing for the Elderly......... 2003 -- 783,286 734,580
Housing for Persons with 2003 -- 250,515 236,610
Disabilities...................
FHA General and Special Risk Program
Account:
Limitation on Guaranteed Loans.. 1995 -- (20,885,072) (45,000,000)
Limitation on Direct Loans...... 1995 -- (220,000) (50,000,000)
Credit Subsidy.................. 1995 -- 188,395 8,600
Administrative Expenses......... 1995 -- 197,470 229,086
GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan
Guarantee Program Account:
Limitation on Guaranteed Loans.. 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (200,000,000)
Administrative Expenses......... 1996 -- 9,101 11,000
Policy Development and Research. 1994 36,470 35,000 58,087
Fair Housing Activities, Fair 1994 26,000 20,481 45,540
Housing Program................
Lead Hazards Reduction Program.. 1994 276,000 185,000 130,000
Salaries and Expenses........... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,160,638
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*SSAN: Such sums as necessary.
Transfer of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.
Appropriation Transfers Recommended in the Bill
Under Title I--Department of Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account from which
Account to which the transfer is the transfer is Amount
made made
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary......... Office of the SSAN* Subject to
Secretary. certain
conditions
OST: Minority Business Outreach. OST:Salaries and Unexpended funds
Expenses.
Essential Air Service Program... Payments to Air SSAN*
Carriers.
FMCSA: Motor Carrier Safety FHWA: Federal-aid To be determined
Grants. highways.
FAA: Operations................. FAA: Operations... 2% of Certain
Funds Subject to
conditions
FTA: any new account............ FTA: any old Available funding
account.
FTA: Administrative Expenses.... FTA: SSDAN* Subject to
Administrative Congressional
Expenses. Approval
Operations and Training......... Maritime $3,526,000**
Guaranteed Loan
(Title XI)
Program Account.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SSAN--Such Sums as Necessary.
** Up to this amount is available to be transferred.
Under Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account from which the transfer
Account to which the transfer is made is made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Captial Fund........................... Tenant-Based Rental Assistance... $6,494,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Project-Based Rental Assistance.. 1,960,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Public Housing Capital Fund...... * 10,000,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Community Development Fund....... $1,584,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Home Investment Partnerships 990,000
Program.
Working Capital Fund........................... Homeless Assistance Grants....... 2,475,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Housing for the Elderly.......... 1,980,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Housing for Persons with 990,000
Disabilities.
Working Capital Fund........................... FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance 25,550,000
Program Account.
Working Capital Fund........................... FHA: General and Special Risk 15,692,000
Program Account.
Working Capital Fund........................... Salaries and Expenses............ * 15,000,000
Working Capital Fund........................... Housing Opportunities of People 1,485,000
with AIDS.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... Native American Housing Block * 148,500
Grants.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... Indian Housing Loan Guarantee * 247,500
Fund Program.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... Native Hawaiian Housing Loan * 34,650
Guarantee Fund.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... Community Development Loan 743,000
Guarantees.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance * 347,490,000
Program Account.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... FHA: General and Special Risk 209,286,000
Program Account.
Salaries and Expenses.......................... GNMA: Guarantees of Mortgage- 10,700,000
Backed Securities Loan Guarantee
program Account.
Office of the Inspector General................ FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance * 3,960,000
Program Account.
Office of the Inspector General................ FHA: General and Special Risk 19,800,000
Program Account.
Flexible Subsidy Fund.......................... Flexible Subsidy Fund............ ** TBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Up to this amount is available to be transferred.
** Subject to the level of uncommitted balances of excess rental charges of Public Housing Authorities.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE 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, and may extend through December 31,
[2006] 2008, 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] 2008, 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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 44310. Ending effective date
The authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide
insurance and reinsurance under this chapter is not effective
after [March 30, 2008] December 31, 2008.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
rental housing insurance
Sec. 207. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) To be eligible for insurance under this section a
mortgage on any property or project shall involve a principal
obligation in an amount--
(2) * * *
(3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property
or projects as may be attributable to dwelling use
(excluding exterior and land improvements as defined by
the Secretary), $38,025 per family unit without
bedroom, $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom,
$50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per
family unit with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family
unit with four or more bedrooms, or not to exceed
$17,460 per space; except that as to projects to
consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may,
in his discretion, increase the dollar amount
limitations per family unit to not to exceed $43,875
per family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 per family
unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with two
bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms,
as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs
incident to the construction of elevator type
structures of sound standards of construction and
design; and except that the Secretary may, by
regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount
limitations contained in this paragraph by not to
exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any geographical
area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so
require and by not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent,
or [170 percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high
cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary
on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may any
such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary
determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased
by the Government National Mortgage Association in
implementing its special assistance functions under
section 305 of this Act (as such section existed
immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved.
* * * * * * *
cooperative housing insurance
Sec. 213. (a) * * *
(b) To be eligible for insurance under this section a
mortgage on any property or project of a corporation or trust
of the character described in paragraph numbered (1) of
subsection (a) of this section shall involve a principal
obligation in an amount--
(2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property
or project as may be attributable to dwelling use
(excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the
Secretary), $41,207 per family unit without a bedroom,
$47,511 per family unit with one bedroom, $57,300 per
family unit with two bedrooms, $73,343 per family unit
with three bedrooms, and $81,708 per family unit with
four or more bedrooms, and not to exceed 98 per centum
of the amount which the Secretary estimates will be the
replacement cost of the property or project when the
proposed physical improvements are completed: Provided,
That as to projects to consist of elevator-type
structures the Secretary may, in his discretion,
increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit
to not to exceed $43,875 per family unit without a
bedroom, $49,710 per family unit with one bedroom,
$60,446 per family unit with two bedrooms, $78,197 per
family unit with three bedrooms, and $85,836 per family
unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to
compensate for the higher cost incident to the
construction of elevator-type structures of sound
standards of construction and design; (B)(i) the
Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the
dollar amount limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such
limitations may have been adjusted in accordance with
section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed [140
percent] 170 percent in any geographical area where the
Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not
to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in
high cost areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where
the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
project basis, but in no case may any such increase
exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a
mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing its
special assistance functions under section 305 of this
Act (as such section existed immediately before
November 30, 1983) is involved; and (ii) in the case of
a mortgagor of the character described in paragraph (3)
of subsection (a) the mortgage shall involve a
principal obligation in an amount not to exceed 90 per
centum of the amount which the Secretary estimates will
be the replacement cost of the property or project when
the proposed physical improvements are completed; and
(iii) upon the sale of a property or project by a
mortgagor of the character described in paragraph (3)
of subsection (a) to a nonprofit cooperative ownership
housing corporation or trust within two years after the
completion of such property or project the mortgage
given to finance such sale shall involve a principal
obligation in an amount not to exceed the maximum
amount computed in accordance with this subparagraph
(B)(i)..
* * * * * * *
rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation housing insurance
Sec. 220. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) To be eligible for insurance under this section a
mortgage shall meet the following conditions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The mortgage shall--
(A) * * *
(B)(ii) * * *
(iii)(I) not to exceed, for such part of the property
or project as may be attributable to dwelling use
(excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the
Secretary), $38,025 per family unit without a bedroom,
$42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, $50,310 per
family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per family unit
with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family unit with
four or more bedrooms, except that as to projects to
consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may,
in his discretion, increase the dollar amount
limitations per family unit not to exceed $43,875 per
family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 per family unit
with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with two
bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms,
as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs
incident to the construction of elevator-type
structures of sound standards of construction and
design; and (II) with respect to rehabilitation
projects involving not more than five family units, the
Secretary may by regulation increase by 25 per centum
any of the dollar amount limitations in subparagraph
(B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have been adjusted
in accordance with section 206A of this Act) which are
applicable to units with two, three, or four or more
bedrooms; (III) the Secretary may, by regulation,
increase the dollar amount limitations contained in
subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have
been adjusted in accordance with section [206A of this
Act)) by not to exceed 110 percent in any geographical
area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so
require and by not to exceed 140 percent where the
Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
project basis] 206A of this Act) by not to exceed 170
percent in any geographical area where the Secretary
finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed
170 percent, or 215 percent in high cost areas, where
the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
project basis, but in no case may any such increase
exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a
mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing its
special assistance functions under section 305 of this
Act (as such section existed immediately before
November 30, 1983) is involved); (IV) That nothing
contained in this subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) shall
preclude the insurance of mortgages covering existing
multifamily dwellings to be rehabilitated or
reconstructed for the purposes set forth in subsection
(a) of this section; (V) the Secretary may further
increase any of the dollar limitations which would
otherwise apply to such projects by not to exceed 20
per centum if such increase is necessary to account for
the increased cost of the project due to the
installation therein of a solar energy system (as
defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of
section 2(a) of this Act) or residential energy
conservation measures (as defined in section 210(11)(A)
through (G) and (I) of Public Law 95-619) in cases
where the Secretary determines that such measures are
in addition to those required under the minimum
property standards and will be cost-effective over the
life of the measure; and
housing for moderate income and displaced families
Sec. 221. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a
mortgage shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) if executed by a mortgagor which is a public body
or agency (and, except with respect to a project
assisted or to be assisted pursuant to section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, which certifies that
it is not receiving financial assistance from the
United States exclusively pursuant to such Act), a
cooperative (including an investor-sponsor who meets
such requirements as the Secretary may impose to assure
that the consumer interest is protected), or a limited
dividend corporation (as defined by the Secretary), or
a private nonprofit corporation or association, or
other mortgagor approved by the Secretary, and
regulated or supervised under Federal or State laws or
by political subdivisions of States, or agencies
thereof, or by the Secretary under a regulatory
agreement or otherwise, as to rents, charges, and
methods of operation, in such form and in such manner
as in the opinion of the Secretary will effectuate the
purposes of this section--
(ii)(I) not exceed, for such part of the
property or project as may be attributable to
dwelling use (excluding exterior land
improvements as defined by the Secretary),
$42,048 per family unit without a bedroom,
$48,481 per family unit with one bedroom,
58,469 per family unit with two bedrooms,
$74,840 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $83,375 per family unit with four or more
bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist
of elevator-type structures the Secretary may,
in his discretion, increase the dollar amount
limitations per family unit to not to exceed
$44,250 per family unit without a bedroom,
$50,724 per family unit with one bedroom,
$61,680 per family unit with two bedrooms,
$79,793 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $87,588 per family unit with four or more
bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for
the higher costs incident to the construction
of elevator-type structures of sound standards
of construction and design; (II) the Secretary
may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar
amount limitations in subclause (I) (as such
limitations may have been adjusted in
accordance with section 206A of this Act) by
not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any
geographical area where the Secretary finds
that cost levels so require and by not to
exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170
percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high
cost areas, where the Secretary determines it
necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in
no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent
where the Secretary determines that a mortgage
purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing
its special assistance functions under section
305 of this Act (as such section existed
immediately before November 30, 1983) is
involved; and
* * * * * * *
(4) if executed by a mortgagor and which is approved
by the Secretary--
(ii)(I) not exceed, or such part of the
property or project as may be attributable to
dwelling use (excluding exterior land
improvements as defined by the Secretary),
$37,843 per family unit without a bedroom,
$42,954 per family unit with one bedroom,
$51,920 per family unit with two bedrooms,
$65,169 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $73,846 per family unit with four or more
bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist
of elevator-type structures the Secretary may,
in his discretion, increase the dollar amount
limitations per family unit to not to exceed
$40,876 per family unit without a bedroom,
$46,859 per family unit with one bedroom,
$56,979 per family unit with two bedrooms,
$73,710 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $80,913 per family unit with four or more
bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for
the higher costs incident to the construction
of elevator-type structures of sound standards
of construction and design; (II) the Secretary
may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar
limitations in subclause (I) (as such
limitations may have been adjusted in
accordance with section 206A of this Act) by
not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent in any
geographical area where the Secretary finds
that cost levels so require and by not to
exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170
percent in high cost areas] 215 percent in high
cost areas, where the Secretary determines it
necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in
no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent
where the Secretary determines that a mortgage
purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing
its special assistance functions under section
305 of this Act (as such section existed
immediately before November 30, 1983) is
involved;
* * * * * * *
housing for elderly persons
Sec. 231. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a
mortgage to provide housing for elderly persons shall--
(2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property
or project as may be attributable to dwelling use
(excluding exterior land improvement as defined by the
Secretary), $35,978 per family unit without a bedroom,
$40,220 per family unit with one bedroom, $48,029 per
family unit with two bedrooms, $57,798 per family unit
with three bedrooms, and $67,950 per family unit with
four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to
consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may,
in his discretion, increase the dollar amount
limitations per family unit to not to exceed $40,876
per family unit without a bedroom, $46,859 per family
unit with one bedroom, $56,979 per family unit with two
bedrooms, $73,710 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $80,913 per family unit with four or more bedrooms,
as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs
incident to the construction of elevator-type
structures of sound standards of construction and
design; (B) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase
any of the dollar limitations in subparagraph (A) (as
such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance
with section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed [140
percent] 170 percent in any geographical area where the
Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not
to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in
high cost areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where
the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
project basis, but in no case may any such increase
exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a
mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing its
special assistance functions under section 305 of this
Act (as such section existed immediately before
November 30, 1983) is involved; (C) the Secretary may,
by regulation, increase any of the dollar limitations
in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations may have been
adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act)
by not to exceed 20 per centum if such increase is
necessary to account for the increased cost of the
project due to the installation therein of a solar
energy system (as defined in subparagraph (3) of the
last paragraph of section 2(a) of this Act) or
residential energy conservation measures (as defined in
section 210(11) (A) through (G) and (I) of Public Law
95-619) in cases where the Secretary determines that
such measures are in addition to those required under
the minimum property standards and will be cost-
effective over the life of the measure;
* * * * * * *
mortgage insurance for condominiums
Sec. 234. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) To be eligible for insurance, a blanket mortgage on
any multi-family project of a mortgagor of the character
described in subsection (d) shall involve a principal
obligation in an amount--
(2) * * *
(3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the project as
may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior
land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $42,048
per family unit without a bedroom, $48,481 per family
unit with one bedroom, $58,469 per family unit with two
bedrooms, $74,840 per family unit with three bedrooms,
and $83,375 per family unit with four or more bedrooms;
except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type
structures the Secretary may, in his discretion,
increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit
to not to exceed $44,250 per family unit without a
bedroom, $50,724 per family unit with one bedroom,
$61,680 per family unit with two bedrooms, $79,793 per
family unit with three bedrooms, and $87,588 per family
unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to
compensate for higher costs incident to the
construction of elevator-type structures of sound
standards of construction and design; (B) the Secretary
may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar
limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations
may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A
of this Act) by not to exceed [140 percent] 170 percent
in any geographical area where the Secretary finds that
cost levels so require and by not to exceed [140
percent] 170 percent, or [170 percent in high cost
areas] 215 percent in high cost areas, where the
Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-
project basis, but in no case may any such increase
exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a
mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government
National Mortgage Association in implementing its
special assistance functions under section 305 of this
Act (as such section existed immediately before
November 30, 1983) is involved; and
* * * * * * *
----------
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] 2008.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 321 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1986
Sec. 321. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration shall
enter into a contract with the Southern California Rapid
Transit District to conduct a study of the potential methane
gas risks relating to the proposed alignment of the Metro Rail
project beyond the Minimum Operable Segment, MOS-1. [None of
the funds described in section 320 may be made available for
any segment of the downtown Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley
Metro Rail project unless and until the Southern California
Rapid Transit District officially notifies and commits to the
Urban Mass Transportation Administration that no part of the
Metro Rail project will tunnel into or through any zone
designated as a potential risk zone or high potential risk zone
in the report of the City of Los Angeles dated June 10, 1985,
entitled ``Task Force Report on the March 24, 1985 Methane Gas
Explosion and Fire in the Fairfax Area''.] Funds for this
study, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, shall be made
available from funds previously allocated for the MOS-1
project, commencing within 30 days of enactment.
* * * * * * *
Rescissions
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following
table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in
the accompanying bill:
Title I--Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary, Compensation for Air -$22,000,000
Carriers............................................
Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-Aid -185,500,000
Highways............................................
Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Highways. -3,000,000,000
Federal Highway Administration....................... -390,050,734.53
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor -3,469,553
Carrier Safety Operations and Programs..............
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor -11,260,214
Carrier Safety Grants...............................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National -32,187,720
Motor Carrier Safety................................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National -5,212,858
Motor Carrier Safety Program........................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -12,197,113.60
Operations and Research.............................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -119,914.61
National Driver Register............................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, -10,528,958
Highway Traffic Safety Grants.......................
Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus -28,660,920
Grants..............................................
Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment -17,760,000
Grants..............................................
Maritime Administration, Ship Construction........... -3,526,000
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Housing Certificate Fund........................... -$1,300,000,000
Rental Housing Assistance.......................... -27,600,000
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions proposed in the
accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain
circumstances, to change the application of existing law,
either directly or indirectly. The bill provides that
appropriations shall remain available for more than one year
for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing
legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended
availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding
of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been
finalized. In addition, the bill carries language, in some
instances, permitting activities not authorized by law, or
exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which
has been carried in appropriations acts for many years.
The bill includes limitations on official entertainment,
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar
provisions have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of
automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
Language is included in several instances permitting certain
funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
The bill continues a number of general provisions applying
to agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions
applying government-wide. These provisions have been carried in
the prior year appropriations bill, and some have been carried
for many years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number
of new general provisions.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and official
reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer
authority among offices.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits
establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs.
Language is included for the Office of Civil Rights.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Transportation planning, research, and development'' which
provides funds for conducting transportation planning,
research, systems development, development activities and
making grants, and makes funds available until expended.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department
of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on
a competitive basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the
transfer for any funds to the Working Capital Fund with
approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable
agreements levied against any program, project or activity
funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable
agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business resource center'' which limits the amount
of loans that can be subsidized, and provides funds for
administrative expenses.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be
used for business opportunities related to any mode of
transportation, and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Payments to air carriers'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of
Transportation to consider subsidy requirements when
determining service to a community, and allows the Secretary to
repay any funds borrowed from the Federal Aviation
Administration to fund the essential air service program.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Compensation for air carriers'' which rescinds funds.
Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing
the Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums
from ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses'' to
``Minority Business Outreach''.
Section 102. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from
approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal
reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
Section 103. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to implement an essential air
service local cost participation program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides funds for
operations, safety activities, staff offices and research
activities related to commercial space transportation,
administrative expenses for research and development,
establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation
(including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing
the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public,
lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement;
funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies
transfer authority among offices.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan,
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred
in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard setting
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $8,500,000 for the
contract tower cost sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting transfer of funds, as
specified.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for new applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a
government-issued credit card.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds for
acquisition, establishment technical support services,
improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air navigation
and experimental facilities and equipment; engineering and
service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and
related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase,
lease, or transfer of aircraft.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that provides funds
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research,
engineering, and development, including construction of
experimental facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by
lease or grant; and limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that allows certain
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering
and development to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides funds from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and
development; noise compatibility planning and programs;
procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway
incursion prevention devices and systems; grants authorized
under section 41743 of title 49, U.S.C.; and inspection
activities and administration of airport safety programs; and
limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for
the planning or execution of programs with obligations in
excess of $3,600,000,000.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that prohibits funds for the
replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of
terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are
necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides $80,676,000 for
administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that specifies $10,000,000 for
the airport cooperative research program, $18,712,000 for the
airport technology research program and $10,000,000 for the
Small Community Air Service Development Program.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that rescinds contract authority
above the obligation limitation.
Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring
FAA to accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated
equipment procured by airports, subject to certain criteria.
Section 111. The Committee retains a provision limiting the
number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced
Aviation Systems Development to 375 in fiscal year 2008.
Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
FAA from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency
``without cost'' building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in
the case of certain specified exceptions.
Section 113. The Committee continues a provision that
allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49
U.S.C. 45303.
Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing
reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to
foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the operations
account.
Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending
the current terms and conditions of FAA's aviation insurance
program, commonly known as the ``war risk insurance'' program,
for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31,
2008. In addition it extends the underlying authorization until
December 31, 2008.
Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting
funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules
at Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Limitation on administrative expenses'' that
limit the amount to be paid together with advances and
reimbursements received.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that limits the
obligations for Federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction programs; limits the amount available for the
implementation or execution of programs for transportation
research, which shall not apply to any authority previously
made available for obligation; authorizes funds and obligation
limitation associated with a portion of revenue aligned budget
authority for the motor carrier safety grant program to be
transferred to the Federal motor Carrier Safety Administration;
allows the Secretary to charge, collect and spend fees for loan
applications and that such amounts are in addition to
administrative expenses and are not subject to any obligation
limitation or limitation on administrative expenses under
section 608 of title 23, U.S.C., and which are available until
expended.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid highways'' that liquidates
contract authority and rescinds unobligated balances with
certain limitations.
Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that
distributes obligation authority among federal-aid highway
programs.
Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that
credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics to the federal-aid highways account.
Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed
demonstration or high priority projects from the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
240.
Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed high
priority projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century, Public Law 105-178.
Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program.
Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for
administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available
for obligation because of the limitation on administrative
expenses imposed in this Act and prior Acts.
Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized for
transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109-59 that
will not be available for obligation because of the limitation
on obligations imposed on those funds in this Act and prior
Acts.
Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances made available for highway
related safety grants in prior appropriations Acts.
Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated balances associated with completed
demonstration or high priority projects from previous
appropriations acts.
Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that
provides additional funding to the transportation, community,
and system preservation program.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor carrier safety grants'' that provides a
limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract
authorization, including specifying amounts available for the
commercial driver's license improvements program, border
enforcement grants program, the performance and registration
information system management program, the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks deployment program, the safety
data improvement program, and the commercial driver's license
information system modernization program; specifies amount for
new entrant audits; and rescinds unobligated balances from
prior years.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and
Programs'', that provides a limitation on obligations and
liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying
amounts available for research and technology programs and
commercial motor vehicle operator's grants; prohibits funds for
outreach and education from being transferred; and rescinds
unobligated balances from prior years.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety'' that rescinds
unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' that
rescinds unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts.
Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting
funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of
section 350 of Public Law 107-87 and Section 6901 of Public Law
110-28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a
report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that limits the
availability of funds and prohibits the planning or
implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car
tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' that provides a
limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds,
and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the
Highway Trust Fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``National driver register'' that
provides a limitation on obligations and a liquidation of
contract authorization from the Highway Trust Fund.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that
provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability
of funds, specifies the amounts for certain programs and
provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the
Highway Trust Fund.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' prohibiting
the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling
costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private
buildings.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' that limits
an evaluation for the High Visibility Enforcement Program to
$750,000.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting the
amount of funds available for technical assistance to states
under section 410.
Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that
provides funding for travel and related expenses for state
management reviews and highway safety core competency
development training.
Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that
rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized from the
highway trust fund for NHTSA's operation and research
activities that will not be available for obligation because of
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous
acts.
Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that
rescind unobligated contract authority authorized for the
national driver register that will not be available for
obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on
those funds in previous acts.
Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that
rescind unobligated contract authority authorized from the
highway trust fund for NHTSA's highway safety grant programs
that will not be available for obligation because of
limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous
acts.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Safety and operations'' limiting the availability of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad research and development'' limiting the availability
of funds.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' authorizing
the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay
obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration
for the ``Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program'' as
authorized by section 9002 of Public Law 109-59.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Operating subsidy grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the Secretary of
Transportation to make quarterly grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation; allows the Secretary to approve
funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for
each train route; ensures that each grant request is
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue
projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the
Corporation to achieve savings through operational
efficiencies; requires the Inspector General of the Department
of Transportation to provide quarterly reports to the Congress
on estimates of the savings due to operational reforms;
requires the Corporation to submit to Congress the status of
its plan to improve the financial performance of food and
beverage service as well as first class service, including
sleeper car service as well as a report on progress compared
with its targets provided in its fiscal year 2007 plan;
requires the Corporation to submit a detailed business plan
that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and
operating expenses as well as monthly reports regarding the
status of the business plan; requires that contracts entered
into by the Corporation will be governed by the laws of the
District of Columbia; requires the Corporation to follow the
provisions the direct loan agreement; and prohibits funds to
support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50
percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is
the result of a discount covered by a State.
Language is included providing funds for Amtrak's Office of
Inspector General.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Capital and Debt Service Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that allows the
Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation for the maintenance and repair
of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the
Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars
funds under this section to be used for operating losses;
restricts the use of funds unless they have been approved by
the Secretary or are contained in the Corporation's business
plan; provides financial incentives that can be used for
capital improvements if the Corporation demonstrates
operational savings and meets ridership and revenue targets;
provides funds for the development and implementation of a
managerial cost accounting system; and requires the
establishment of a common definition for ``state of good
repair'' on the Northeast Corridor.
The Committee includes new language under Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Intercity Passenger Rail Program'' as
recommended in the President's budget that establishes and
provides funding for an Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program.
Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that
allows FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation
Lifesaver.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative Expenses'' specifying an amount for
administrative expenses and requires approval for central
account transfers.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative Expenses'' prohibiting funds for a permanent
office of transit security; specifying the amount to reimburse
the IG for certain costs, and directing the submission of the
annual report on new starts.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Formula and Bus Grants'' that provides a limitation on
obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of
contract authorization for the operating expenses of the
agency, limits the availability of funds, and rescinds
unobligated balances.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Research and University Centers'' that limits the
availability of funds and specifies the amounts for certain
offices and programs.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Capital Investment Grants'' that limits the availability of
funds, specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and
rescinds unobligated balances.
Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that
exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on
obligations.
Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that
allows unobligated funds for projects under ``Capital
Investment Grants'' and bus and bus facilities under ``Formula
and Bus Grants'' in prior year appropriations Acts to be used
in this fiscal year.
Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that
allows for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older
accounts to be merged into new accounts with similar, current
activities.
Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that
allows unobligated funds for projects under ``Capital
Investment Grants'' to be used in this fiscal year for
activities eligible in the year the funds were appropriated.
Section 164. The Committee recommends a new provision as
proposed in the budget request that allows FTA to provide
grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-
installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus.
Section 165. The Committee includes a new provision for
grants under the clean fuel Program.
Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which
repeals a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a
subway system in Los Angeles, CA.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures,
contracts, and commitments as may be necessary.
Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation ``Operations and Maintenance'' that
provides funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Security Program'' that limits the availability of
funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' that provides dedicated funds for
salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United
States Merchant Marine Academy, and the State Maritime Schools
Schoolship Maintenance and Repair; and limits the availability
of some funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship
Disposal'' that limits the availability of funds.
Language is included under Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account'' that
provides for the transfer to Operations and Training and
rescinds unobligated balances.
Language is included under Maritime Administration, ``Ship
Construction Program'' that rescinds unobligated balances.
Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that
allows the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and
services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy
involving government property under the control of MARAD and
retal payments shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that
prohibits obligations incurred during the current year from
construction funds in excess of the appropriations contained in
this Act or in any appropriations Act.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Administrative expenses'' which
specifies the amount derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' which
limits the availability of a certain amount and allows up to
$1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting
receipts.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Hazardous materials safety'' that
credits certain funds received for expenses incurred for
training and other activities incurred in performance of
hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' which specifies the
amounts derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund and the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, and limits their period of availabilitiy.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that requires the
agency to fund the one-call state grant program.
Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, ``Emergency Preparedness Grants'' which
specifies the amount derived from the Emergency Preparedness
Fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits
funds from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary
or his designee.
Language is included under Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, ``Research and development'' that
limits the availability of funds and credits to the
appropriation funds received from States and other sources for
expenses incurred for training.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by
the Department of Transportation. Language is also included
under Office of Inspector General, ``Salaries and expenses''
that authorizes the Office of Inspector General to investigate
unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition
by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,250,000
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such fees are received.
Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing
the Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft;
motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances,
as authorized by law.
Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the
rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 182. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and
Presidential personnel assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Section 183. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of
title 23, United States Code.
Section 184. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act from
releasing personal information, including social security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record, without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
from states, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources to be used for expenses
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's
respective accounts.
Section 186. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock
sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 187. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for
any grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than
three full business days before any discretionary grant award,
letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or its modal
administrations.
Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from
rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to
appropriations.
Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing
amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that
are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to
be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such
payments.
Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that
clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass
included in Public Law 102-143.
Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that
clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway
project included in section 378 of Public Law 106-346.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-based rental assistance'', which
designates funds for various programs, activities, and
purposes, and specifies the uses and availability of such
funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Tenant-based rental assistance'', which
specifies funds for certain programs and limits the use of
certain funds; specifies the methodology for allocation of
renewal funding; directs the Secretary to the extent possible
to pro rate each public housing agency's (PHA) allocation;
directs that those PHAs participating in Moving to Work, shall
be funded according to that agreement; specifies the amount for
additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen emergencies and
portability; provides that additional tenant protection rental
assistance costs be funded by prior year unobligated balances;
provides funding for incremental vouchers for nonelderly
disabled families and homeless veterans provides for the
transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund; specifies the
amounts available to the Secretary to allocate to PHA that need
additional funds and for fees; provides the criteria to
allocate a portion of Administrative Fees; and directs that all
funds shall be only for activities related to the provision of
tenant-based rental assistance authorized under section 8.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing certificate fund'', which rescinds prior
year funds; allows the Secretary to rescind funds from other
accounts if there are insufficient unobligated balances; and
directs the Secretary to report where the rescission is taken.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public housing capital fund'', which limits the
availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver
authorities and prohibits funds from being used for certain
activities; specifies the total amount available for certain
activities; prohibits funds from being used for certain
purposes; and specifies the amount for grants, support
services, service coordinators and congregate services, to
support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships,
and to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and
Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment
Center.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Public housing operating fund'', which sets the
basis for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of
funds under certain conditions.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native American Housing Block Grants'', which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for
allocation; specifies the amounts for technical assistance and
capacity building, to support the inspection of Indian housing
units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total
principal amount of any notes, and the cost of guaranteed
notes, which are defined in section 502 of the Congressional
budget Act of 1974.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant'', which
limits the availability of funds and specifies the amount for
training and technical activities.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account'', which limits the availability of funds; specifies
how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan
principal; and provides a dedicated amount for administrative
expenses and allows for its transfer to ``Salaries and
Expenses''.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account'', which limits the availability of funds; specifies
how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the
amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan
principal; and provides a dedicated amount for administrative
expenses and allows for its transfer to ``Salaries and
Expenses''.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS'',
which limits availability of funds, sets forth certain
requirements for the allocation and renewal of funds and
contracts, and specifies funds available for training,
oversight, and technical assistance activities, and the amount
available for transfer to the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Community development fund'', which specifies
the allocation of certain funds; limits the use and
availability of certain funds; specifies the amount made
available for grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes,
emergencies, Economic Development Initiatives with certain
restrictions, and neighborhood initiatives with certain
restrictions.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Home investment partnerships program'', which
limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; and provides for the
transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program'', which limits the availability of funds and specifies
the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Homeless assistance grants'', which limits the
availability of funds; establishes certain minimum funding and
matching requirements; specifies the allocation of certain
funds for certain purposes; directs the Secretary to renew
contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to
integrate homeless programs with other social service
providers; and provides for the transfer of funds to the
Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', which limits
the availability of funds; specifies the amount for certain
programs; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain
purposes; and provides for the transfer of funds to the Working
Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for the elderly'', which specifies the
allocation of certain funds; designates certain funds to be
used only for certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive
certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for
the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Housing for persons with disabilities'', which
specifies the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be
used to renew certain contracts; allows the Secretary to waive
certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for
the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Rental Housing Assistance'', which limits the
availability of funds and rescinds funds.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Manufactured housing fees trust fund'', which
limits the availability of funds and permits fees to be
assessed, modified, and collected, and permits temporary
borrowing authority from the General Fund of the Treasury.
Language is included under the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, ``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program
Account'', which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the
obligations to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific
purposes; allows for the transfer of funds ``Salaries and
Expenses'', ``Office of Inspector General'', and the Working
Capital Fund; allows for additional contract expenses as
guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain levels.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``General and Special Risk Program Account'',
which limits the amount of commitments to guarantee loans;
specifies funds for specific purposes; and allows for the
transfer of funds ``Salaries and Expenses'', ``Office of
Inspector General'', and the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Government National Mortgage Association'',
which limits new commitments to issue guarantees, specifies
amounts for administrative expenses, and allows for the
transfer of funds to ``Salaries and Expenses''.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Policy Development and Research'', which limits
the availability of funds; specifies funds for the Partnership
for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative, and that
related activities shall be administered by the Office of
Policy Development and Research; and specifies the amount for
grants.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Fair housing and equal opportunity'', which
limits the availability of funds, authorizes the Secretary to
assess and collect fees, and places restrictions on the use of
funds for lobbying activities.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Lead Hazard Control'', which limits
the availability of funds, specifies the amount of funds for
specific purposes, specifies the treatment of certain grants,
and specifies recipient matching and application requirements.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Management and Administration'', which specifies
the allocation of funds; identifies the transfer to
``Management and Administration''; sets forth certain
authorities of, and requirements on, the office of the Chief
Financial Officer; defines the point of obligation of funds;
provides for funds to be transferred to the Working Capital
Fund; and directs the Secretary to fill certain vacancies.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Working Capital Fund'', which limits the purpose
and availability of funds, including funds transferred.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Inspector General'', which specifies a
certain amount provided from the various funds of the Federal
Housing Administration, and directs that the IG shall have
independent authority over all personnel issues within the
office.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, ``Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight'', which limits the availability of certain funds,
specifies the amounts for certain activities, and permits
temporary borrowing authority from the General Fund of the
Treasury.
Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment
factors.
Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair
Housing Act.
Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain
States.
Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated
to be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government
Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950.
Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget
estimates.
Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years,
regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and
agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years,
requiring submission of a spending plan for technical
assistance, training and management improvement activities
prior to the expenditure of funds.
Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to
provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and
excess funds in each departmental program and activity.
Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary
metropolitan areas. A proviso is added to allow a state to
administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local
government is unable to undertake the HOPWA grants management
functions.
Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an
annual report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the number of Federally assisted units under
lease and the per unit cost of these units.
Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements
for the Department's annual congressional justification of
appropriations.
Section 213 continues language carried in previous year
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous
years for persons with disabilities upon turnover.
Section 214 relates to state authority regarding
participation on housing boards.
Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based
assistance in specific circumstances.
Section 216 continues language in precious acts specifying
the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan
recipients.
Section 217 continues language carried in previous years
elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to
continue to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous
years for family unification upon turnover.
Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on
which the audit of GNMA is conducted.
Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the
Section 8 program.
Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion
Mortgages until September 30, 2008.
Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The
Committee does not recommend several new administrative
provisions proposed in the budget to amend various housing
authorization statutes.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language is included for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' that allows for the credit to the appropriation of
funds received for publications and training expenses.
Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission,
``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor
vehicles, uniforms and allowances, and official reception and
representation expenses.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and Expenses'' that provides funds for hire
of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and
official reception and representation expenses; and rescinds
prior year unobligated balances.
Language is included under National Transportation Safety
Board, ``Salaries and Expenses'' that allows funds provided
herein to be used to pay for FY08 costs associated with a 2001
capital lease.
Language is included for the United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness, ``Operating Expenses'' that provides
funds for salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles,
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT
Section 401. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 402. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 403. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided
herein.
Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 405. The Committee continues a provision specifying
reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new
offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process.
Section 406. The Committee continues the provision
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain
available for certain purposes.
Section 407 continues a provision requiring a report from
all agencies and departments funded under this Act to the
Committees on Appropriations on all sole source contracts by no
later than July 31, 2008.
Section 408 continues the provision prohibiting federal
training not directly related to the performance of official
duties.
Section 409. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting
funds for contractors unless they participate in the basic
pilot program described in section 403 (a) of 8 U.S.C. 1324a
note.
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee
by the Congressional Budget Office.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for
financial assistance to state and local governments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.058
Earmarks
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the
following congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or
9(f) of rule XXI.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR238.020
MINORITY VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND JOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERG
The fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Related
Agencies bill funds a number of important and popular programs,
however, the largest programs--surface transportation,
aviation, and assisted housing--all stand on the brink of
bankruptcy or authorization. Both constituencies, housing and
transportation, proclaim the need for Federal funding, yet
neither is willing to consider how the relative spending for
housing and transportation programs fit into the overall spend
and tax plan, and neither is willing to face reform and
reorganization in order to deliver the best programs
efficiently and effectively.
How dire is the situation? The Highway Trust Fund will be
over $4 billion in the red by the end of fiscal year 2009. The
new Section 8 bill which passed the House earlier this month
will increase voucher spending by $2 billion over the next five
years. These shortfalls and massive spending increases are not
directed or caused by the Committee on Appropriations, but
rather the spending for housing and transportation programs is
directed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, and as
usual, the Committee on Appropriations is left holding the bag.
However, there is simply not enough money in the general
Treasury to make up for the well predicted shortfall and
demand, and still meet critical funding needs in other areas.
We warn, that without sensible and major intervention, plus an
overhaul of House Rule 21(3), this Committee cannot and will
not simply write a blank check.
Further, the Committee cannot continue to rely on
rescissions of prior year funds to fund these programs. The
Committee relies on a $3 billion rescission of prior year
highway contract authority to bring the bill within the 302(b)
allocation. While highway rescissions have been used in years
past, never before has the outlook for the Highway Trust Fund
been so catastrophic.
Another major flaw in this bill is the inclusion of a $1.3
billion rescission of prior year HUD appropriations. The bill
includes this rescission in spite of the fact that HUD can not
meet the requirement without severely cutting sensitive
programs, including and specifically, the construction of
facilities for elderly and disabled low income individuals.
One principle reason is that the bill also includes
language that prohibits the recapture of excess section 8 funds
to be used toward meeting the rescission requirement, even
though the amounts included for 2007 is significantly more than
are needed to renew all estimated vouchers under the new
methodology that the majority has adopted. HUD estimates that
between $350 and $500 million in excess funding was enacted in
2007.
Project based renewals are also not available for the
rescission. In fact, HUD has estimated that its current 2007
contractual obligations with project owners are a minimum of
$1.8 billion more than the funds available in 2007 and the
project based section 8 program could be as much as $2.6
billion short in 2007. Hence, as currently envisioned, none of
the section 8 program funds, which in total is two-thirds of
HOD's entire budget, are available for meeting the rescission.
Therefore, HUD will have to reduce other programs with
balances remaining from 2007 and prior year appropriations to
meet the $1.3 billion rescission included in this bill. Because
typically construction is a slow spend out program this means
that programs such as elderly and disabled facility programs
will have to be sacrificed to meet the rescission. This will be
followed by reductions in Community Development Block Grants,
HOPE VI grants and funds used to modernize public housing which
also typically take more than one year to spend.
However you look at it, this is a bad outcome and every
measure must be taken to lessen or eliminate the reduction in
these programs. First and foremost is the need to strike the
preclusion of the recapture of clearly excess section 8 funds
to renew vouchers that was included in this bill. What was
clearly and deliberately provided by the Majority as excess
funding in 2007 must be viewed as a lower priority than
eliminating desperately needed low income elderly and disabled
facilities.
Second, the Congress needs to include language that allows
HUD to fund project based contracts on an ``as needed'' basis
rather than 100 percent up front funding as is now the
practice. Many contracts cross two fiscal years and up front
funding is simply not needed.
If both of the Minority recommendations were adopted, the
rescission could be met with a minimum of disruption to other
programs and the shortfall for the project based program would
be greatly diminished or eliminated.
The argument that the rescission was proposed by the
Administration and Congress is only implementing the
Administration's proposal is disingenuous on two counts. First
the Committee rejected every other Administration proposal to
reduce funding and eliminate duplicative and low priority
programs, all of which could have lessened the need for, or
lowered the amount of, the rescission included to meet the
Committee's target funding level.
Second, the Administration's proposal was based on a very
different methodology for renewing section 8 vouchers and
project based contracts than was adopted by Congress long after
the 2008 budget was submitted to Congress. This new methodology
was airdropped at the last minute into the Continuing
Resolution and radically altered the way in which funds are
distributed.
Finally as noted above, the funding levels for HUD are more
than they should be or need to be. Many programs are
duplicative of other programs, have a proven record of poor
performance and have been eliminated or proposed for
elimination for many years. Other critical programs could have
been funded at higher levels or the reduction of prior year
appropriations (rescission) could have been less had these
programs been eliminated as proposed. We will continue to work
to lessen the burden on the Committee to meet its target by
emphasizing the need to eliminate low priority programs and
focus scarce resources on high priority needs.
Jerry Lewis.
Joe Knollenberg.