[Senate Report 110-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]



                                                       Calendar No. 272
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-131

======================================================================



 
 TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008

                                _______

                 July 16, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


          Mrs. Murray, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 1789]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1789) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2008

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $51,112,233,000
Amount of 2007 appropriations...........................  48,176,366,000
Amount of 2008 budget estimate..........................  47,999,562,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2007 appropriations.................................  +2,935,867,000
    2008 budget estimate................................  +3,112,671,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Transparency in Congressional Directives.........................     3
Program, Project, and Activity...................................     3
Reprogramming Guidelines.........................................     4
Congressional Budget Justifications..............................     5
Title I: Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................     7
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    19
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    50
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    65
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    75
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................    87
    Federal Transit Administration...............................    99
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................   116
    Maritime Administration......................................   117
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......   122
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration............   125
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................   126
    Office of Inspector General..................................   127
    Surface Transportation Board.................................   128
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............   128
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Office of the Secretary......................................   130
    Executive Operations.........................................   131
    Public and Indian Housing....................................   137
    Community Planning and Development...........................   146
    Housing Programs.............................................   167
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   171
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   173
    Policy Development and Research..............................   174
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   177
    Office of Lead Hazard Control................................   179
    Management and Administration................................   181
    Office of Inspector General..................................   182
        Working Capital Fund.....................................   182
    Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight...............   183
    Administrative Provisions....................................   183
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board...   186
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   186
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   187
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   189
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   190
Title IV: General Provisions This Act............................   192
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   193
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   194
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   195
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   205
Comparative Statement............................................   206

                TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES

    On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The 
Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a 
vote of 96-2. While the Committee awaits final action on this 
legislation, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee 
issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1 
are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008.
    The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the 
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should 
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money. In 
order to improve transparency and accountability in the process 
of approving earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations 
measures, each Committee report includes, for each earmark:
  --(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where 
        appropriate, the President;
  --(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if 
        there is no specifically intended recipient, the 
        intended location of the activity; and
  --(3) the purpose of such earmark.
    The term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision or 
report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, 
providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of 
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other 
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, 
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or 
targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional 
district, other than through a statutory or administrative, 
formula-driven, or competitive award process.
    For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a 
certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse) 
has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with 
Senate Rule XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the 
public at http://appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go 
to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ``Members''.

                     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'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount 
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint 
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or 
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint 
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 
definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 
(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to 
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made 
through either bill or report language. In addition, the 
percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 
funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal 
Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each 
budget item that is listed under said account in the budget 
justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts 
and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or 
joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee includes a provision (sec. 405) establishing 
the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded 
by this Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The 
provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal 
to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2) 
eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases 
funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied 
or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds 
that were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a 
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of 
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an 
existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or 
(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different 
from the congressional budget justifications or the table at 
the end of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed.
    The Committee retains the requirement that each agency 
submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming 
and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically, 
each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with 
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by 
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the 
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the 
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must 
also identify items of special congressional interest.
    The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit 
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a 
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a 
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the 
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget 
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency 
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later 
than June 30.
    The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs 
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The 
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should 
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or 
a situation that could not have been anticipated when 
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. 
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency 
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees 
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from 
the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the 
Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before 
proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider 
the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
    The Committee would also like to clarify that this section 
applies to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that 
no funds may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, 
projects or activities for which appropriations have been 
specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or 
personnel for any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this 
Act.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    While the Committee supports the concept of the Program 
Assessment Rating Tool [PART] as a method for evaluating 
programs by linking performance, goals, and benchmarks with 
funding decisions, the process has failed largely through the 
inability of the administration to establish meaningful 
benchmarks and program goals that can be used as a valid 
measure for the success of a program and its funding 
requirements/needs. In too many cases, the PART analysis 
appears to be overly subjective and designed to reach certain 
preconceived conclusions about a program's validity and 
accomplishments and its budget needs.
    This approach reduces PART's value as a tool for measuring 
the contributions of a program and to what extent a program 
should be funded. More troubling, OMB and Federal agencies have 
tended to accommodate an increasing amount of PART performance 
data in the budget justifications by eliminating fundamental 
and objective programmatic budget data that is critical to the 
work of the Committee. This trend has made it increasingly 
difficult for the Committee to perform a meaningful review of 
budget justifications, including the ability to conduct 
necessary budget oversight work as well as the ability to reach 
valid and comprehensive funding decisions absent a substantial 
amount of additional review and budget analysis.
    Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the 
agency, but instead are the primary tool used by the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource 
requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is 
aware that the format and presentation of budget materials is 
largely left to the agency within presentation objectives set 
forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 specifically 
states that the ``agency should consult with your congressional 
committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your plans 
to modify the format of agency budget documents.'' The 
Committee is disappointed that none of the agencies funded 
under this act have recently heeded this direction. 
Nevertheless, the Committee expects all the budget 
justification to provide the data needed to make appropriate 
and meaningful funding decisions.
    While the Committee values the inclusion of performance 
data and presentations, it is important to ensure that, in the 
implementation of the PART analysis, vital budget information 
that the Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2009 
budget request by agencies funded under this act must contain 
the customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements 
to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail 
contained in the funding table included at the end of the 
report. Among other items, agencies shall provide a detailed 
discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the 
agency's financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed 
data on all programs and comprehensive information on any 
office or agency restructurings. At a minimum, each agency must 
also provide adequate justification for funding and staffing 
changes for each individual office and materials that compare 
programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal 
year 2009 to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    The Committee is aware that the analytical materials 
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency 
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each 
agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its 
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 
2009 budget request.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

    Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of 
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment 
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The 
Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the 
offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 
International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for 
Transportation for Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices 
for Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, and 
Administration; and the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency 
Response, Chief Information Officer, the General Counsel and 
Public Affairs. The Office of the Secretary also includes the 
Department's Office of Civil Rights and the Department's 
Working Capital Fund.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $84,551,850
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      96,196,936
Committee recommendation................................      95,197,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation finances the costs of policy development 
and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary 
for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It 
covers the immediate secretarial offices and the offices of the 
under secretary, assistant secretaries, general counsel and 
other support offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $95,197,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. The recommendation is $999,936 less 
than the budget request and $10,645,150 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level.
    The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer 
up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary 
to another. The Committee recommendation continues language 
that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the 
Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2007 enacted     2008 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................       $2,196,870       $2,314,274       $2,314,274
Office of the Deputy Secretary...............................          697,120          736,833          736,833
Office of the General Counsel................................       15,148,070       16,219,099       18,719,099
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy...       11,635,050       12,374,050       11,874,050
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs....        8,465,100       10,416,963       10,416,963
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs...        2,290,570        2,384,312        2,384,312
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.........       21,879,740       26,007,990       24,007,990
Office of Public Affairs.....................................        1,908,450        1,987,803        1,987,803
Executive Secretariat........................................        1,440,630        1,534,557        1,534,557
Board of Contract Appeals....................................          695,830  ...............  ...............
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......        1,263,550        1,334,596        1,334,596
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.....        5,129,720        8,299,072        8,299,072
Office of the Chief Information Officer......................       11,801,150       12,587,387       11,587,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and Expenses...........................       84,551,850       96,196,936       95,197,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has 
the primary responsibility to provide overall planning, 
direction, and control of the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,314,274 for fiscal year 2008 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is the same as the budget request and $117,404 greater than the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of 
assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction 
of the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $736,833 for the Immediate Office 
of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget 
request and $39,713 greater than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services 
to the Office of the Secretary including the conduct of 
aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer 
activities and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the 
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The 
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of 
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on 
all legal questions.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $18,719,099 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2008. The 
recommended funding level is $2,500,000 more than the budget 
request and $3,571,029 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in addition to the 
budget request in order to increase enforcement activities to 
better protect air travel consumers. The Committee is aware 
that most airline consumer complaints to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation are not investigated, but rather are simply 
tallied and published monthly. The administration has indicated 
that current budgets for the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 
Proceedings limit the number of investigations performed to 
only those involving complaints related to civil rights issues 
or service received by disabled passengers. However, many 
observers, including the USDOT Inspector General, have 
recommended that the USDOT should take a more active role in 
overseeing airline customer service, including investigation of 
more types of airline traveler consumer complaints, including 
flight cancellations.

       OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer 
of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the 
analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for 
domestic and international transportation matters. The Office 
administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the 
airline industry and is responsible for international aviation 
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness 
licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, 
computerized reservation systems, and special investigations 
such as airline delays.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $11,874,050 
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The 
recommended funding level is $500,000 less than the budget 
request and $239,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the 
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, 
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget 
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of 
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this 
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation 
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to 
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution 
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of 
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for 
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to 
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes 
necessary to improve program effectiveness.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,416,963 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, the same as the 
budget request and $1,951,863 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises 
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental 
activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and 
other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant 
Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal 
agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and 
local governments and national organizations for development of 
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, 
awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking 
process.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $2,384,312 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, an 
amount equal to the budget request and $93,742 over the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level.

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible 
for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, 
working with the operating administrations to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human 
resource management, security and administrative management, 
real and personal property management, and acquisition and 
grants management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $24,007,990 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $2,000,000 less than the buget request and $2,128,250 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to 
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news 
media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news 
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, 
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides 
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the 
public and news media on transportation programs and issues. It 
arranges news conferences and provides speeches, talking 
points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior 
departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary's 
scheduling.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,987,803 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is the same amount as the budget request 
and $79,353 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                         EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the 
Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and 
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and 
external written materials.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,534,557 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget 
request and $93,927 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.

                       BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals 
was to provide an independent forum for the trial and 
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor 
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as 
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend funding for the Board of 
Contract Appeals for fiscal year 2008 because the program was 
transferred to the General Services Administration in April 
2007.

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for 
small and disadvantaged business participation in the 
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective 
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 
of the Small Business Act, as amended.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,334,596 an amount equal to the 
budget request and $71,046 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level.

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 
keeps the Secretary and his advisors informed on intelligence 
and security issues pertaining to transportation. The office 
also provides support to the Secretary for his statutory and 
administrative responsibilities in the areas of emergency 
preparedness, response, and recovery functions. Further, the 
office ensures that transportation policy and programs support 
the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and 
stability, and the security of the Unites States.
    The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 
is at the forefront of the Department's response to 
transportation-related emergencies. To prepare for such events, 
the office coordinates and conducts the Department's 
participation in national and regional exercise and training 
for emergency personnel; administers the Department's 
Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations programs; 
and coordinates DOT's role in select international contingency 
plan and response initiatives. Additionally, the office 
provides direct emergency response and recovery support through 
the National Response Plan [NRP] and operates the Department's 
Crisis Management Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the 
Nation's transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 
and is the Department's focal point during emergencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $8,299,072 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is equal to the request and $3,169,352 more than 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee approves the 
request for four additional FTEs to carry out the emergency 
response functions of the office.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves 
as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving 
information resources and information systems management.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $11,587,000, which is $999,986 
less than the budget request and $213,749 less than the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $8,527,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       9,140,900
Committee recommendation................................       9,140,900

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity 
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for 
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small 
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as 
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the 
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and 
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In 
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing 
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally 
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,140,900 for 
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2008. The 
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is 
$613,900 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $14,893,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       9,115,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,115,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Secretary performs those research 
activities and studies which can more effectively or 
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This 
research effort supports the planning, research and development 
activities needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of 
national transportation policies. The program is carried out 
primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies, 
educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and 
private firms.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $14,115,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, which is $5,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $778,000 less than the fiscal year 
2007 enacted level. The Committee directs funding to be 
allocated to the following projects that are listed below:

                                                      TPR&D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Committee
                  Project name                        recommendation                   Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtual Accident and Injury Reconstruction                    $2,250,000  Cochran
 Center, Mississippi State University,
 Mississippi.
UVM Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar Systems,                 1,000,000  Leahy
 Vermont.
Transportation and Public Safety Traffic                         500,000  Carper/Biden
 Information Exchange Pilot Project, Delaware.
SR-520 Innovative Water Quality Protection                       500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Project, Washington.
Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, Washington                  250,000  Murray
Washington State University Freight                              500,000  Murray
 Transportation Policy Institute, Washington.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2007........................................    $118,014,000
Budget estimate, 2008\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................     128,094,000

\1\Proposed without limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common 
administrative services to the Department's operating 
administrations and other Federal entities. The services are 
centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency 
and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department 
operating administrations and other Federal customers and are 
billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent 
possible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on 
activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The 
budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on 
the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating 
administrations of the Department. The Committee, however, 
insists that the discipline of an annual limitation is 
necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working 
Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, the bill 
specificies that the limitation shall apply only to the 
Department and not to services provided by other entities. The 
Committee directs that services shall be provided on a 
competitive basis to the maximum extent possible.
    The Committee believes that the Department of 
Transportation should provide greater transparency in its 
budget justifications for the WCF as well as the OST offices 
that provide WCF services. For example, the justifications for 
the WCF do not indicate the sources of funding for the WCF. In 
addition, although only a small portion of the budgets for the 
Office of the Chief Information Officer and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration are funded from direct 
appropriations, the justifications for those offices do not 
present the balance of funding between direct appropriations 
and reimbursements through the WCF.
    The Committee notes the Office of the Inspector General 
[OIG] published a report on March 31, 2005 that discussed the 
lack of clarity in the budget for the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer. In this report, the OIG recommended that 
``the OCIO disclose the full range of OCIO responsibilities and 
other sources of funding, including the departmental Working 
Capital Fund, in future-year budget submissions.'' The 
Committee is looking forward to the upcoming report of the OIG 
on the budget for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, which the Committee expects will discuss issues 
similar to those raised in the 2005 report.
    In order to see greater transparency in the budget request, 
the Committee directs the Department to provide the following 
information in its fiscal year 2009 budget justifications: the 
amount of funding for the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration from direct appropriations, and the amount of 
funding for those two offices from WCF reimbursements; a clear 
description of the WCF work that is completed under the 
appropriations cap, exempt from the cap, and completed under 
reimbursable agreements; and full supporting information for 
any request to lift the appropriations cap, including an 
inventory of work that cannot be supplied due to the cap.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriations  guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007.................         $892,500     ($18,367,000)
Budget estimate, 2008................          891,000      (18,367,000)
Committee recommendation.............          891,000      (18,367,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for 
disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required 
by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records 
the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this 
program as well as administrative expenses of this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $370,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $521,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate 
and it is $1,500,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed 
loans of $18,367,000 the same amount as the budget request and 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       2,970,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,970,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged 
business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising 
out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal 
spending. It also provides support to historically black and 
Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the 
administration since this program provides grants and contract 
assistance that serves Department-wide goals and not just OST 
purposes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,970,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2008. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations   Mandatory\1\        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007\1\.........................................     $59,400,000     $50,000,000    $109,400,000
Budget estimate, 2008...........................................  ..............      50,000,000      50,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      60,000,000      50,000,000     110,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From overflight fees or funds otherwise provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
  41742.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides additional funding for the 
Essential Air Service [EAS] program, which was created as a 10-
year transition program to continue air service to communities 
that had received federally mandated air service prior to 
deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program 
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small 
communities that meet certain criteria.
    The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user 
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from, 
nor land in, the United States. These are commonly known as 
overflight fees. In addition, the act stipulated that the first 
$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance 
the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law 
requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds 
available to the agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2008, the administration proposes no 
appropriated funds for the EAS program, although the budget 
includes $50,000,000 for the EAS program to be funded by 
overflight fees collected by the FAA. The Committee 
recommendation provides a total of $110,000,000 for the 
Essential Air Service program, which is comprised of an 
appropriation under this heading of $60,000,000 and $50,000,000 
derived from overflight fees or funds otherwise available to 
the FAA. The Committee recommendation is $60,000,000 more than 
the budget estimate and $600,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. Based on the latest projections from the 
Department of Transportation, the funding level that the 
Committee recommends is sufficient to continue air service 
during fiscal year 2008 for every community currently receiving 
service through the EAS program as of February 1, 2007.
    The Committee rejects a proposal in the budget request that 
would restructure the EAS program. The proposal would change 
the program by eliminating the ``minimum requirements'' for 
eligibility that are currently in place, allowing EAS funds to 
be used for ground transportation, and establishing a ranking 
of eligible communities in order to determine the order in 
which they would receive assistance.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of February 1, 2007 in the 
continental United States and Hawaii.

                                SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007
                                        [Excludes Communities in Alaska]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Avg. Daily
                                                  Est. Miles   Enplnmnts    Ann. Sbsdy               Total Psgrs
               States/Communities                 to Nearest     at EAS    Rates at  5/ Subsidy per   (YE 12/31/
                                                 Hub (S,M,or   Point (YE      1/2007     Passenger       06)
                                                    L)\1\      12/31/06)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA: Muscle Shoals/Florence................           60         19.5   $1,504,929      $123.04       12,231
ARIZONA:
    Kingman....................................          103          7.5    1,001,989       212.20        4,722
    Page.......................................          280         18.7    1,057,655        90.31       11,712
    Prescott...................................          102         11.5    1,001,989       138.68        7,225
    Show Low...................................          168         14.8      779,325        84.01        9,277
ARKANSAS:
    El Dorado..................................          108          6.0      937,385       250.04        3,749
    Harrison...................................           77         14.6    1,406,078       154.09        9,125
    Hot Springs................................           53         12.1    1,015,500       133.88        7,585
    Jonesboro..................................           79         10.2      937,385       146.97        6,378
CALIFORNIA:
    Crescent City..............................          362         35.7      957,025        42.84       22,339
    Merced.....................................           55         25.0      799,604        51.15       15,634
    Visalia....................................           44         13.9      799,604        92.21        8,672
COLORADO:
    Alamosa....................................          162         19.3    1,150,268        95.35       12,064
    Cortez.....................................          258         29.9      796,577        42.59       18,705
    Pueblo.....................................           43         11.2      780,997       111.13        7,028
GEORGIA: Athens................................           72         19.9      624,679        50.16       12,454
ILLINOIS:
    Decatur....................................          120         45.7    1,350,256        47.21       28,604
    Marion.....................................          122         36.0    1,126,810        50.06       22,507
    Quincy.....................................          108         24.8    1,532,891        98.64       15,540
IOWA:
    Burlington.................................           96         24.9      943,793        60.51       15,598
    Fort Dodge.................................           94         21.7    1,080,386        79.38       13,611
    Mason City.................................          128         38.0    1,080,386        45.37       23,815
KANSAS:
    Dodge City.................................          149         16.0    1,379,419       137.60       10,025
    Garden City................................          201         33.0    1,733,997        84.01       20,640
    Great Bend.................................          120          2.6      621,945       380.16        1,636
    Hays.......................................          180         29.5    1,540,392        83.40       18,470
    Liberal....................................          153         12.6    1,008,582       127.67        7,900
    Manhattan..................................          120         34.6      487,004        22.47       21,675
    Salina.....................................           93          5.9      487,004       130.95        3,719
KENTUCKY: Owensboro............................          105         14.6      906,262        98.86        9,167
MAINE:
    Augusta....................................           68         13.5    1,190,864       166.08        8,460
    Bar Harbor.................................          157         32.1    1,190,864        59.19       20,119
    Presque Isle...............................          276         51.7    1,201,476        37.11       32,380
    Rockland...................................           80         20.4    1,190,864        93.27       12,768
MARYLAND: Hagerstown...........................           60         18.7      854,452        72.96       11,711
MICHIGAN:
    Escanaba...................................          114         32.4      908,903        44.79       20,291
    Ironwood...................................          218         10.5      409,242        62.51        6,547
    Iron Mountain..............................          101         24.8      602,761        38.89       15,500
    Manistee...................................          180         10.2      776,051       121.79        6,372
MINNESOTA:
    Hibbing/Chisholm...........................          178         29.0    1,279,329        70.40       18,172
    Thief River Falls..........................          302         10.6      777,709       116.83        6,657
MISSISSIPPI: Laurel/Hattiesburg................           90         42.7      917,129        34.33       26,714
MISSOURI:
    Cape Girardeau.............................          123         24.7    1,434,915        92.69       15,480
    Columbia...................................          117         42.5      598,751        22.49       26,625
    Fort Leonard Wood..........................           86         26.4      519,858        31.42       16,543
    Joplin.....................................           72         35.1      849,757        38.69       21,964
    Kirksville.................................          137          5.5      627,100       182.93        3,428
MONTANA:
    Glasgow....................................          280          5.7      922,103       258.00        3,574
    Glendive...................................          223          3.4      922,103       439.10        2,100
    Havre......................................          248          4.8      922,103       305.53        3,018
    Lewistown..................................          125          2.2      922,103       671.60        1,373
    Miles City.................................          146          3.8      922,103       389.57        2,367
    Sidney.....................................          273         10.1    1,306,313       206.27        6,333
    West Yellowstone...........................          315         12.2      247,122        32.35        7,638
    Wolf Point.................................          293          5.6      922,103       261.00        3,533
NEBRASKA:
    Alliance...................................          256          5.6      655,898       188.15        3,486
    Chadron....................................          311          7.2      655,898       145.30        4,514
    Grand Island...............................          140         23.9    1,377,877        92.26       14,934
    Kearney....................................          181         27.3      897,142        52.49       17,093
    McCook.....................................          271          7.8      918,585       188.97        4,861
    North Platte...............................          277         26.0      976,026        59.97       16,276
    Scottsbluff................................          109         29.0      520,137        28.65       18,155
NEVADA: Ely....................................          237        (\2\)      647,709        (\2\)        (\2\)
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lebanon.........................           75         30.7    1,069,606        55.62       19,229
NEW MEXICO:
    Alamogordo.................................           91        (\3\)      717,506        (\3\)        (\3\)
    Carlsbad...................................          141         11.4      599,671        84.34        7,110
    Clovis.....................................          103          7.5      859,057       183.79        4,674
    Hobbs......................................           90          5.9      519,614       141.05        3,684
    Silver City................................          133          7.4      859,057       184.27        4,662
NEW YORK:
    Jamestown..................................           76         14.4    1,217,414       134.77        9,033
    Massena....................................          143          9.4      699,302       119.21        5,866
    Ogdensburg.................................          123          5.3      699,302       211.14        3,312
    Plattsburgh................................           78          6.5      853,378       209.26        4,078
    Saranac Lake...............................          126          9.2      853,378       148.72        5,738
    Watertown..................................           65         13.0      699,302        85.72        8,158
NORTH DAKOTA:
    Devils Lake................................          405         10.5    1,329,858       202.66        6,562
    Dickinson..................................          319         17.4    1,696,977       156.02       10,877
    Jamestown..................................          332          7.6    1,351,677       284.80        4,746
OREGON: Pendleton..............................          195         23.4      748,440        51.10       14,648
PENNSYLVANIA:
    Altoona....................................          108         19.7      893,774        72.62       12,307
    Bradford...................................           77         11.2    1,217,414       174.09        6,993
    Du Bois....................................          112         26.9      599,271        35.62       16,824
    Johnstown..................................           82         32.8      464,777        22.62       20,544
    Lancaster..................................           66         21.3    1,377,257       103.14       13,353
    Oil City/Franklin..........................           86          6.1      741,346       193.41        3,833
PUERTO RICO:
    Mayaguez...................................          105         12.0      688,551        92.02        7,483
    Ponce......................................           77         13.7      622,056        72.62     \4\8,566
SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Brookings..................................          206          3.6    1,212,400       543.92        2,229
    Huron......................................          279          5.2      793,733       243.10        3,265
    Watertown..................................          207         19.0    1,211,589       102.07       11,870
TENNESSEE: Jackson.............................           85         10.9      906,262       132.75        6,827
TEXAS: Victoria................................          108         27.7      510,185        29.38       17,367
UTAH:
    Cedar City.................................          178         23.2      897,535        61.93       14,492
    Moab.......................................          240          5.7    1,298,784       362.89        3,579
    Vernal.....................................          174          6.4      562,720       139.88        4,023
VERMONT: Rutland...............................          118          6.9      849,705       195.92        4,337
VIRGINIA: Staunton.............................          133         17.0    1,389,727       130.81       10,624
WEST VIRGINIA:
    Beckley....................................          181          7.5    1,930,759       412.12        4,685
    Clarksburg.................................  ...........         12.0      547,532        72.99        7,501
    Greenbrier/Lewisburg.......................          172         14.8      685,040        74.09     \5\9,246
    Morgantown.................................  ...........         14.6      547,532        59.72        9,168
    Parkersburg................................  ...........         20.2    1,326,850       104.67       12,676
WYOMING:
    Laramie....................................          144         28.9      487,516        26.99       18,061
    Worland....................................          164          8.3      972,757       187.21        5,196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the changes in enplanement levels at the specific
  hub and at all airports Nationwide.
\2\Reliable data not available from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
\3\Service hiatus.
\4\Cape Air Traffic only.
\5\Air Midwest traffic only.

                     COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    -$50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     -22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     -22,000,000

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $22,000,000 from 
this account in fiscal year 2008. This rescission level is the 
same as the budget request and $28,000,000 larger than the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The funds recommended for 
rescission are in excess of the amount determined to be needed 
for eligible payments to air carriers.

  ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

    Section 101 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
transfer to the account called ``Minority Business Outreach'' 
unexpended balances from the bonding assistance program funded 
out of the account ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and 
Expenses.''
    Section 102 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a 
modal administration in order to approve assessments or 
reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the 
regular process for the reprogramming of funds, including 
congressional notification.
    Section 103 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local 
participation program.

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the 
safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national 
system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in 
civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 
within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce 
Act of 1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air 
commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, 
and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and 
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new, 
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
    Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the 
creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency 
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of 
Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal 
Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration 
[FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within 
DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with 
enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased 
to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil 
aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation 
Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the 
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the 
new Transportation Security Administration.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal 
year 2008 amounts to $14,940,420,000, which is $246,969,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    The current budget structure for the FAA includes distinct 
accounts to pay for the operations of the agency (Operations), 
and the agency's capital expenditures (Facilities and 
Equipment). The FAA budget justification for fiscal year 2008 
propose to restructure these two accounts along the lines of 
business of the agency. Under this proposal, one account would 
pay for the Air Traffic Organization, including both the 
operating and capital expenses of the organization. Another 
account, Safety and Operations, would pay for both the 
operating and capital expenses of the Aviation Safety office 
and other offices within the FAA. This new budget structure is 
consistent with the reauthorization proposal submitted by the 
President in February of this year. The Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation has reported legislation 
that would authorize FAA programs through fiscal year 2011, and 
the Commerce Committee bill continues to authorize FAA programs 
under the existing account structure. As such, the Committee 
has also followed the current account structure for its 
appropriations recommendations for 2008. All of the information 
presented below, including the display of President's budget 
estimates for fiscal year 2008, follows the existing structure.
    In addition to changes to the FAA budget structure, the 
reauthorization proposal submitted by the President this year 
would make significant changes to the financing of FAA 
programs. The proposal would replace the current system of 
aviation taxes with a new user fee system, and it would provide 
the FAA with the authority to borrow up to $5,000,000,000 from 
the Treasury. Such borrowing would be repaid by an automatic 
increase to one of the newly-proposed user fees. Such borrowing 
authority would represent a considerable departure from the 
current financing of almost all FAA spending through direct 
appropriations.
    The Appropriations Committee has played a central role in 
ensuring that the FAA has the resources it needs to conduct its 
missions. The Committee has also sought to protect the 
investment of taxpayer dollars in the FAA by making sure that 
the agency spends its resources efficiently. Not only has the 
Committee cut wasteful spending on ineffective programs, it has 
also provided additional resources for critically important 
activities that the agency or the Office of Management and 
Budget [OMB] had overlooked in its budget requests. As such, 
the Committee believes that any degradation in the Committee's 
ability to annually set programmatic spending levels and 
oversee the agency's spending habits as part of the 
reauthorization process should be strenuously resisted.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 2008 excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2007 enacted      2008 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
    General fund appropriation.........................     $2,746,317,000     $2,601,372,000     $2,361,203,000
    Trust fund appropriation...........................      5,627,900,000      6,124,411,000      6,400,580,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,516,920,000      2,461,566,000      2,516,920,000
Research, engineering, and development:
    General fund appropriation.........................        130,234,000        122,867,000        148,800,000
    Trust fund appropriation...........................  .................         17,133,000  .................
Grants-in-aid for airports.............................      3,514,500,000      2,750,000,000      3,514,500,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     14,535,871,000     14,077,349,000     14,940,420,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $8,374,217,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   8,725,783,000
Committee recommendation................................   8,761,783,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
international, commercial space, medical, engineering and 
development programs, as well as policy oversight and agency 
management functions. The operations appropriation includes the 
following major activities: (1) the air traffic organization 
which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, the national air 
traffic system, including the establishment and maintenance of 
a national system of aids to navigation, the development and 
distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of 
acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) the 
regulation and certification activities including establishment 
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety and 
development of standards, rules and regulations governing the 
physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an 
aviation medical research program; (3) the office of commercial 
space transportation; and (4) headquarters, administration and 
other staff and support offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $8,761,783,000 for FAA 
operations. This funding level is $43,209,783 more than the 
budget request, and $387,566,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives 
$6,400,580,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway 
trust fund. The trust fund level is equal to the budget 
estimate. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from 
the general fund of the Treasury.
    As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event 
resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air 
traffic control system.
    The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior 
years relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and 
cartography, and Government-issued credit cards.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                           2007  enacted      2008  estimate    recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization...............................     $6,739,761,000     $6,964,813,000     $6,964,813,000
Aviation Safety........................................      1,003,410,000      1,056,103,364      1,092,103,000
Commercial Space Transportation........................         11,696,000         12,837,437         12,837,437
Financial Services.....................................         76,289,000        103,848,661        103,848,661
Human Resource Management..............................         85,738,000         91,214,239         91,214,239
Region and Center Operations...........................        275,797,000        290,872,359        290,872,359
Staff Offices..........................................        145,524,000        166,541,633        166,541,633
Information Services...................................         36,002,000         39,552,285         39,552,285
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL............................................      8,374,217,000      8,725,783,000      8,761,783,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

    The Committee recommends $6,964,813,000 for the Air Traffic 
Organization to operate and maintain the national air traffic 
control system. The recommended level is equal to the budget 
estimate, and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 
Committee is confident that the recommended funding level is 
sufficient to continue safe and efficient management of the 
National Airspace System [NAS].
    Air Traffic Controller Contract.--Last year, after failing 
to reach an agreement on a new contract through the collective 
bargaining process, the Administrator used questionable 
statutory authority to impose a new pay structure and work 
rules on the air traffic controller workforce. Several issues 
regarding the imposition of these terms are unresolved and 
tension between the controllers and FAA management remains at 
its worst point since the PATCO strike. The Committee believes 
that the current tenor of labor-management relations at the 
agency is not at all in the best interest of the FAA safety 
mission and the ability of the agency to tackle its most vexing 
challenges. As such, the Committee expects the Administrator to 
work aggressively to resolve the conflict over the controller's 
contract immediately.
    Air Traffic Controller Staffing.--The bill includes a 
provision that requires the FAA to submit to Congress its 
annual air traffic controller workforce plan by March 31 of 
each year. The original controller workforce plan was submitted 
to Congress in December 2004. Although the agency promised that 
the plan would be updated annually, the Committee had to wait 
until June 2006 before receiving any update to that plan. Since 
that time, the Committee has not received the 2007 update. The 
Committee directs the FAA to submit its 2007 plan immediately. 
The Committee also directs the FAA to include in each update to 
the controller workforce plan annual information on the total 
number of air traffic controllers that the agency projects for 
its workforce in addition to providing the estimated losses and 
planned hires to the controller workforce. Under the terms of 
the provision in the bill, the agency's budget will be 
effectively fined for each day after March 31 that the report 
is not submitted.
    The Committee believes that a fully staffed controller 
workforce is critical to maintaining the safety of the air 
transportation system. However, the Committee is concerned that 
the FAA will not be able to reach its staffing goals for the 
current fiscal year, placing the goals for fiscal year 2008 in 
further jeopardy. As illustrated by the table below, the FAA 
expected to lose 1,197 air traffic controllers this year, and 
it hopes to hire 1,386 controllers in order fill those 
vacancies and increase its total staff level to 14,807. 
However, a little over halfway through fiscal year 2007, the 
FAA had already lost 900 controllers, or 75 percent of the 
total number of controller losses that the agency had projected 
for the entire year. The FAA also underestimated the number of 
controller losses to the workforce for both fiscal years 2005 
and 2006. If controller losses continue to occur at this rate, 
the FAA will have to hire a total of 1,732 controllers this 
year in order to meet its workforce goal. That hiring total is 
346 more controllers than the FAA had planned to hire before 
the end of the fiscal year. While the agency insists that it 
can still meet its end-of-year on-board strength goal for this 
year, the Committee will continue to monitor this situation 
carefully. The safety of our skies makes it essential that the 
FAA's hard hiring targets be viewed as a mandate on the agency, 
not as some amorphous goal that can slip from year to year. 


    Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].--The Committee recommends 
$1,600,000 to continue the implementation of the Alien Species 
Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA as part of its August 
26, 1998, record of decision approving certain improvements at 
Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds will be used 
to execute capital projects and continue the operational 
requirements imposed by the ASAP. Requested by Senator Inouye.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    The Committee recommends $1,092,103,000 for aviation 
safety. The recommendation is $35,999,636, more than the budget 
request, and $88,693,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.
    Staffing levels for the Flight Standards and Aircraft 
Certification Offices.--The Committee has again increased 
funding for aviation safety in order to boost critical safety 
staff in the Office of Aviation Flight Standards [AFS] and the 
Office of Aircraft Certification [AIR]. The bill continues to 
prohibit the FAA from reprogramming or transferring these funds 
to any other activity. The Committee expects the FAA to hire 
364 additional safety staff with this increase in funding. With 
this additional funding and the increase in safety staff, the 
FAA will be able to raise the total number of safety staff on 
board in fiscal year 2008 from 6,912 to 7,276. The Committee 
directs the FAA to report to the Committee on a quarterly basis 
on the agency's progress toward accomplishing the goal of 
retaining 7,276 safety inspectors in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee is gravely concerned that the FAA has not 
maintained the level of staffing in its flight standards and 
aircraft certification offices necessary to meet the demands of 
overseeing the safety of today's aviation industry. As with the 
staffing goals for air traffic controllers, if the FAA is 
unable to achieve its stated goals for the current fiscal year, 
then the agency also places its staffing goals for fiscal year 
2008 in jeopardy. As detailed in the table below, the FAA 
expected to lose 467 flight standards and aircraft 
certification staff this year, and it hopes to hire 576 staff 
members in order to fill those vacancies and increase its total 
staff level to 6,671. Now, 8 months through fiscal year 2007, 
the FAA has lost 371 members of its safety staff, representing 
about 80 percent of the total number of staff members that the 
agency had estimated to lose over the entire year. In contrast, 
the FAA has hired only 179 new safety inspectors, representing 
just 31 percent of the total number of new hires the agency had 
planned to bring on board this year.
    If inspector losses continue to occur at the current rate, 
the FAA will have to hire 487 new safety inspectors during the 
last 4 months of the fiscal year, a hiring target which is more 
than twice the number of inspectors the agency has been able to 
hire for the first 8 months of the year. As with the agency's 
controller goals, the FAA insists that it will meet the 2007 
inspector goal. The Committee will continue to monitor the 
situation and encourages the FAA to manage its hiring in a more 
stable manner so that these end-of-year surges in hiring are 
not necessary.


    For 3 out of the past 6 years, the Committee has provided 
more funding than the FAA has requested to pay the salaries and 
boost the number of essential safety staff working in the 
flight standards and aircraft certification offices. The 
Committee has invested these resources because it believes that 
the work of these offices is critical to maintaining a safe air 
transportation system. For fiscal year 2008, this Committee is 
again adding more funds. Some $16,000,000 of this funding will 
be needed simply to retain the additional personnel for which 
the Committee added funding for the current fiscal year. 
However, an additional $20,000,000 is also provided to boost 
inspecter staffing to address the agency's most critical safety 
vulnerabilities. In testimony presented on June 20 to the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the 
Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety explained 
that the additional resources provided by the Committee have 
been essential to her office's efforts to meet all of its 
mission requirements. The Committee commends the candor of the 
Deputy Associate Administrator and hopes that the FAA, in 
future budget requests, will seek sufficient resources to 
adequately staff the flight standards and aircraft 
certification offices.
    Aviation Safety Workforce Plan.--The bill includes a 
provision that requires the FAA to submit to Congress annual 
updates to its safety staff workforce plan by March 31 of each 
year. As in the case of the requirement for the controller 
workforce plan, the agency's budget will be effectively fined 
for each day after March 31 that the report is not submitted. 
The Committee directs the FAA to include in these updates 
annual information on the total number of staff that the agency 
projects will work in its safety offices, the estimated losses 
to its safety workforce, and the number of safety inspectors 
the agency plans to hire in each year. The Committee further 
directs that the FAA publish this information for its safety 
staff in its entirety, as well as individually for the flight 
standards office and the aircraft certification office.
    The Committee continues to be frustrated by the failure of 
the FAA to provide timely information on its hiring practices 
for the safety offices. Last year, the Committee expressed its 
disappointment that the FAA had not yet followed directions 
published in the statement of managers of the 2006 act that 
instructed the FAA to provide semi-annual reports on its safety 
staff. This year, the FAA failed to respond to directions that 
the agency submit a workforce plan for its flight standards and 
aircraft certification staff by March 1. The FAA finally 
submitted such a plan in May, 2 months late, and only after the 
Administrator was questioned on her safety staffing levels at a 
hearing before the Committee.
    Safety Oversight in a Changing Industry.--Air carriers 
continue to increase the amount of repair work that they 
outsource to other firms. In the decade from 1996 to 2006, the 
share of total carrier maintenance expenditures that was 
outsourced grew from 37 percent to 64 percent. The following 
chart illustrates this growth (data provided by the Office of 
the Inspector General): 


    Outsourced maintenance work has come to include the repair 
of critical components such as landing gear and engine 
overhauls, as well as heavy airframe maintenance checks, which 
involve the complete teardown and overhaul of an aircraft. 
Furthermore, more of this outsourced work is being completed 
overseas where the FAA cannot maintain the same level of 
oversight that the agency can bring to bear within the United 
States.
    In separate testimony before the Committee and before the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the 
DOT Inspector General raised serious concerns over the ability 
of the FAA to oversee airline maintenance and guarantee its 
quality. Specifically, the Inspector General noted that the FAA 
does not know all the locations where air carriers are having 
maintenance work conducted. He noted further that the FAA does 
not conduct the same level of oversight over outsourced 
maintenance that the agency conducts over maintenance work 
performed by air carriers in-house. Finally, the Inspector 
General noted that the FAA does not have an adequate system for 
placing its safety inspectors where they are actually needed 
around the globe.
    Perhaps most damning was the following observation of the 
Inspector General in which he maintained that carriers have 
been deliberately directing maintenance activities to certain 
overseas facilities precisely because of the absence of 
sufficient FAA oversight: ``We identified over 1,400 non-
certified repair facilities performing maintenance, and more 
than 100 of these facilities were located in foreign countries, 
such as Aruba, Belize, Bermuda, Dominican Republic, El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Mexico. It is important to note 
that in many instances, air carriers contracted with facilities 
in these locations to ensure that they had a maintenance source 
in locations where there were no FAA-certificated repair 
stations available.''
    The FAA has tried to allay these concerns by pointing out 
that the agency must still certify the air carriers themselves, 
including certification that the air carrier has its own system 
for overseeing outsourced maintenance work. The concerns of the 
Committee, however, are not allayed when it hears the Inspector 
General testify that air carriers often rely on telephone 
contact to monitor the work conducted at non-certified repair 
stations. These same carriers often assign on-site 
representatives to oversee the work performed at repair 
stations that are certified.
    The Committee is aware that the FAA has begun to develop a 
more sophisticated model that will allow the agency to place 
its safety inspectors at locations where they will perform most 
effectively. This effort follows on the heels of a study by the 
National Research Council that showed that the FAA uses an 
antiquated method of locating its safety inspectors. Although 
the Committee understands that the model will be complex, the 
Committee encourages the FAA to build the model expeditiously. 
The Committee also directs the FAA to submit within 90 days a 
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that 
delineates its schedule for completing the model and fully 
utilizing it. The report will specify milestones with deadline 
dates for the development and completion of the model including 
the dates when the model can be expected to be fully utilized 
to dictate the location of all inspector resources.
    Medallion Program.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to 
continue the medallion five star shield program, a key safety 
initiative in the FAA's current strategic plan for reducing 
general aviation accidents in Alaska. Requested by Senator 
Stevens.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $2,516,920,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   2,462,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,516,920,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides 
funding for modernizing and improving air traffic control and 
airway facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation 
also finances major capital investments required by other 
agency programs, experimental research and development 
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and 
capacity of the national airspace system [NAS]. The program 
aims to keep pace with the increasing demands of aeronautical 
activity and remain in accordance with the Federal Aviation 
Administration's comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan 
[CIP].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,516,920,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The Committee recommendation is $54,920,000 
more than the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The bill provides that $2,056,947,000 shall be 
available for obligation until September 30, 2010, and 
$459,973,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008.
    Rebaselining; Accountability and Transparency in FAA 
Procurements.--
          ``It stings when I listen to criticisms about the FAA 
        that are based on something that happened 10 or 20 or 
        30 years ago. In the last few years, we have achieved 
        enormous management efficiencies, and at the end of 
        fiscal year 2006, 97 percent of our major capital 
        projects were on time and on budget.''
                                                FAA 
                                                Administrator 
                                                Marion Blakey,
                                                Hartford, 
                                                Connecticut,
                                                April 5, 2007

          ``As we speak . . . 100 percent of our major capital 
        programs are on schedule and on budget''
                                                FAA 
                                                Administrator 
                                                Marion Blakey,
                                                Testimony 
                                                before the 
                                                Committee,
                                                May 10, 2007

          ``This rebaselining process explains why the Wide 
        Area Augmentation System, according to the FAA's logic, 
        is still on budget, even through its costs have grown 
        from $892,000,000 to over $3,000,000,000 since 1998''
                                                DOT Inspector 
                                                General Calvin 
                                                Scovel,
                                                Testimony 
                                                before the 
                                                Committee,
                                                May 10, 2007

          ``A simple statement that it is on time and on budget 
        doesn't capture that evolution, and certainly, the 
        taxpayer and the Congress will be interested in that 
        entire story, rather than just the sound bite.''
                                                DOT Inspector 
                                                General Calvin 
                                                Scovel,
                                                Testimony 
                                                before the 
                                                Committee,
                                                May 10, 2007
    Much attention has been focused on the need for the FAA to 
replace its current air traffic control infrastructure with a 
``next generation'' [NextGen] system that employs the most 
modern satellite-based technologies to allow the agency to get 
maximum use of the available airspace to accommodate the 
expected growth in air travel. The Committee is supportive of 
the agency's migration to NextGen technologies and has, on a 
number of occasions, funded such technologies without the 
benefit of a budget request from the FAA. However, if the FAA 
is going to successfully deploy NextGen in a fiscally prudent 
and timely manner, it will be essential that the agency 
continue to make significant strides in improving its 
procurement processes.
    As made clear by the statements cited above, the FAA 
Administrator believes that her agency has ``achieved enormous 
management efficiencies'' that give rise to a near-perfect 
procurement record for timely, cost-controlled acquisitions. 
While the Committee certainly agrees that management 
improvements have been made at the FAA, the Committee is not 
convinced that such improvements should be characterized as 
``enormous.'' The Committee certainly questions the 
Administrator's representations that the agency is enjoying a 
near-perfect record in purchasing critical new systems in a 
timely and cost-controlled manner.
    During oversight hearings held in May of this year, the 
Committee pursued in detail the process through which the FAA 
``rebaselines'' the estimated cost and schedule for major 
procurements. ``Rebaselining'' is a process through which the 
FAA completes a thorough examination of a capital program, 
reconsiders if the program justifies its costs, and makes 
adjustments to the schedule and budget of the program. The FAA 
begins a rebaselining process if a capital program appears in 
danger of missing its schedule or exceeding its budget by 10 
percent or more. The Committee does not question the wisdom of 
rebaselining major capital projects that are behind schedule 
and over cost. Indeed, given the FAA's long troubled history 
with major procurements, the Committee commends both the Office 
of the Secretary and the President's Office of Management and 
Budget [OMB] for insisting that the FAA rebaseline procurements 
when appropriate. What the Committee questions in the strongest 
possible terms is the agency's practice of using the 
rebaselining process to ``wipe the slate clean''--using the 
process to ignore skyrocketing costs or dramatic delays that 
may just be a few months old--all so that the agency can claim 
``enormous management efficiencies'' and a near-perfect 
procurement record.
    The numbers speak for themselves. Of the 37 major 
procurements that the FAA evaluates in claiming its near-
perfect procurement record, more than 25 percent of them have 
had their schedules and budget revised by the agency since the 
initial project contracts were signed. These projects include: 
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X; Airport 
Surveillance Radar 11; Aviation Surface Weather Observation 
System; FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure; Free Flight 
Phase II; Integrated Terminal Weather System; NAS 
Infrastructure Management System; Next Generation Air/Ground 
Communications; Standard Terminal Automation and Replacement; 
and Wide Area Augmentation System.
    The graphs displayed below illustrate separately the 
expansion of schedule and cost for these 10 programs--programs 
that the Administrator now claims are on-time and on-budget. 
Lest it be asserted that these figures misrepresent the FAA's 
more recent record in managing and controlling these programs, 
each graph below provides the cost- and schedule-growth figures 
in two ways. One bar details the level of schedule or cost 
growth since each program's inception. The other bar details 
the level of such growth just since 2001. 




    Through the rebaselining process, just since 2001, the FAA 
has added 296 months, or over 25 percent, to the original 
schedules for these programs. The FAA has added almost 
$1,700,000,000, or 26 percent, to the total cost of those 
programs over the same timeframe. When you look to the agency's 
record going back to the inception of each of these programs, 
the FAA has added almost 400 months to their schedules, an 
increase of about 46 percent. Over the same timeframe, the FAA 
also has added more than $5,000,000,000 to their costs. That 
represents cost growth of 109 percent.
    The Committee reemphasizes its view that rebaselining is an 
important tool for the FAA to monitor the performance of its 
major procurements. It should help prevent some of the multi-
billion dollar debacles of the distant past in which the agency 
took far too long to recognize the true risk involved in 
procurements that, in the end, produced little or no benefit 
for the taxpayer. That said, the Committee has no intention of 
ignoring FAA cost and schedule estimates that may be just a few 
years or a few months old in evaluating the agency's 
procurement performance. The Committee believes that the key to 
the FAA improving that performance is continued oversight and 
aggressive program management that holds vendors and project 
managers to clearly defined goals and responsibilities. The key 
does not lie in a rebaselining process that allows the agency 
to annually ``lower the bar'' for itself.
    Definition of Program Success.--In testimony before the 
Committee, the DOT Inspector General pointed out that the 
agency is periodically reporting that certain acquisitions have 
reached a successful completion simply when a procured piece of 
equipment has been delivered to its assigned site. This 
practice is in contrast to reporting success only when the 
device is fully installed, operational, and providing its 
intended benefits to the flying public. To the Administrator's 
credit, the IG's testimony would indicate that this misquided 
reporting practice is now more the exception than the rule. 
This practice is reminiscent of testimony taken by the 
Committee in 2006 in which it was revealed that certain FAA 
managers were granted bonuses based on the rate at which new 
telecommunications links were being installed rather than based 
on the rate at which the replaced telecommunications lines were 
being disconnected--the point at which the taxpayer actually 
began to enjoy savings. The Committee agrees with the Inspector 
General that a new expensive piece of navigational equipment is 
of no use to the public while it is still sitting in a crate. 
As such, the Committee expects the Administrator to present 
budgets that are balanced between procurement, installation and 
training costs so that recently-procured equipment can be 
deployed rapidly and utilized completely by fully trained 
agency personnel. The Committee also asks the Administrator to 
continue to make rapid progress in reporting program success 
based only on the full utilization of procured equipment, not 
simply on the delivery of that equipment to its intended site.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Facilities and 
Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure 
of budget activities as displayed below.
    The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each 
of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:

                                            FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Committee
                                                                    2007 actual    2008 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Testing and Evaluation:
    Advanced Technology Development and Prototype...............     $39,067,000     $37,800,000     $39,800,000
    Safe Flight 21..............................................      12,900,000      17,000,000      17,000,000
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications...................       1,000,000       1,000,000  ..............
    Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground                    25,000,000      30,400,000      30,400,000
     Communications System (NEXCOM).............................
    Traffic Management Advisor (TMA)............................      37,600,000      15,400,000      15,400,000
    Louisville International Airport Demonstration Projects.....  ..............  ..............       2,000,000
    NAS Improvements of System Support Laboratory...............       1,198,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
    Technical Center Facilities.................................      12,000,000      12,000,000      12,000,000
    Technical Center Building and Plant Support.................       4,200,000       4,200,000       4,200,000
    System-Wide Information Management..........................      24,000,000      21,300,000      24,300,000
    ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation...............................      80,000,000      85,650,000      97,354,000
    NextGen Network Enabled Weather.............................  ..............       7,000,000       7,000,000
    Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations (Next-    ..............       7,400,000       7,400,000
     Gen).......................................................
    Next Generations Transportation System Technology Demonstra-  ..............      50,000,000      50,000,000
      tion......................................................
    Next Generation Integrated Airport..........................  ..............  ..............       3,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Activity 1.........................................     236,965,000     290,150,000     310,854,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 2, Procurement and Modernization of Air Traffic Control
 Facilities and Equipment:
    En Route Programs:
        En Route Automation Program (ERAM)......................     376,553,000     368,750,000     368,750,000
        En Route Communications Gateway (ECG)...................       4,200,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
        En Route System Modification............................      27,500,000       4,300,000       4,300,000
        Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)..................       2,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)......................       7,400,000  ..............  ..............
        ARTCC Building Improvement/Plant Improvement............      51,000,000      52,900,000      52,900,000
        Air Traffic Management (ATM)............................      78,850,000      90,600,000      90,600,000
        Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure................      18,788,000      29,200,000      26,200,000
        ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement............      16,400,000      20,200,000      20,200,000
        Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities--Improve..       5,000,000       5,300,000       5,300,000
        En Route Communications and Control Fac--Improve........       1,883,769  ..............  ..............
        Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS)...............      16,900,000      15,700,000      15,700,000
        Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)...............      20,900,000      13,200,000      13,200,000
        Wind Hazard Detection Equipment.........................  ..............  ..............       1,100,000
        FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure...................      31,175,171       8,500,000       8,500,000
        Oceanic Automation System...............................      31,350,000      53,100,000      53,100,000
        ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network......................       6,000,000       3,500,000       3,500,000
        Corridor Weather Integrated System (CWIS)...............  ..............       2,100,000       2,100,000
        San Juan Radar Approach Control.........................  ..............       8,000,000       8,000,000
        MilOps..................................................  ..............       1,600,000       1,600,000
        Automated Detection and Processing Terminal (ADAPT).....  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
        ATCSCC Infrastructure Planning..........................  ..............       2,500,000       2,500,000
        Volcano Monitoring......................................  ..............       1,000,000       3,000,000
    Terminal Programs:
        Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE--X)...........      70,600,000      37,900,000      37,900,000
        Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide..........      12,500,000       8,000,000       8,000,000
        Terminal Automation Modernization Phase 1...............      49,200,000      31,200,000      31,200,000
        Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program         30,450,000       6,800,000       6,800,000
         (TAMR Phase 2).........................................
        Terminal Automation Modernization Program...............      13,800,000       2,300,000       2,300,000
        Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace........     124,000,000     150,600,000     166,700,000
        ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)                 48,833,563      47,000,000      47,000,000
         Facilities--Improve....................................
        Terminal Voice Switch Replace/Enhance Terminal Voice....      11,300,000      12,300,000      12,300,000
        NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards               25,000,000      26,000,000      26,000,000
         Compliance.............................................
        Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9)......................      15,900,000       6,300,000      11,300,000
        Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).........................      44,050,000      20,300,000      20,300,000
        Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance................  ..............  ..............       1,000,000
        Radar Relocation........................................  ..............  ..............       1,500,000
        DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer.............................       2,300,000       1,300,000       1,300,000
        Precision Runway Monitors...............................       2,600,000       9,000,000       9,000,000
        Terminal Radar (ASR)--Improve...........................       2,022,848  ..............  ..............
        Terminal Communications--Improve........................       1,348,887  ..............  ..............
        Runway Status Lights....................................       5,713,854       5,300,000       5,300,000
        National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS).............         500,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Weather System Processor................................       1,000,000       4,100,000       4,100,000
        Voice Recorder Replacement Program......................  ..............       5,900,000      10,500,000
        Houston Area Air Traffic System (HAATS).................  ..............       4,000,000       4,000,000
        NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).............       5,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Flight Service Programs:
        Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)...............       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation             8,300,000  ..............  ..............
         System (OASIS).........................................
        Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization..............       6,152,002       5,100,000       5,100,000
    Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
        VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance            5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
         Measuring Equipment (DME)..............................
        Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establish/Upgrade.......       6,005,000       9,000,000      14,950,000
        Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)....................     122,400,000     115,900,000     115,900,000
        Runway Visual Range.....................................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Navigation and Landing Aids--Improve....................       4,270,933  ..............  ..............
        Approach Lighting System Improvement Pgm (ALSIP)........      15,000,000      15,000,000      18,000,000
        Distance Measuring Equipment--Sustain...................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Visual Navaids--Establish/Expand........................       2,000,000       3,500,000       3,500,000
        Instrument Approach Procedures Automation (IAPA)........       9,300,000      17,800,000      17,800,000
        Navigation and Landing Aids--SLEP.......................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        VASI Replacement-Replace with Precision Approach Path          3,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
         Indicator..............................................
    Other ATC Facilities Programs:
        Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring............       5,800,000       5,900,000       5,900,000
        FAA Buildings and Equipment.............................      13,257,933      13,700,000      13,700,000
        Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local                3,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
         Projects)..............................................
        Aircraft and Related Equipment Program..................      11,000,000       9,800,000       9,800,000
        Computer Aided Engineering and Graphics (CAEG)                 1,500,000       1,500,000       1,500,000
         Modernization..........................................
        Airport Cable Loop System--Sustained Support............       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Alaska NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS)..       2,240,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
        Facilities Decommissioning..............................         500,000       8,000,000       5,400,000
        Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support...............      43,593,040      41,000,000      38,000,000
        Flight Standards Aircraft...............................  ..............       9,000,000       9,000,000
        Energy Management and Efficiency Compliance.............  ..............       2,000,000       2,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Activity 2.....................................   1,449,338,000   1,364,950,000   1,396,600,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 3, Procurement Modernization of Non-Air Traffic Control
 Facilities and Equipment:
    Support Programs:
        Hazardous Materials Management..........................      20,000,000      18,200,000      18,200,000
        Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)..................      14,500,000      16,900,000      16,900,000
        Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF).........       1,000,000       6,300,000       6,300,000
        Test Equipment--Maint Support for Replacement...........       1,500,000       2,500,000       2,500,000
        NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM)......................      10,000,000      10,000,000      10,000,000
        Facility Security Risk Management.......................      25,000,000      22,000,000      22,000,000
        Information Security....................................      19,800,000      15,000,000      15,000,000
        System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO).............      17,300,000      11,300,000      11,300,000
        Center for Aviation Safety Research.....................  ..............  ..............       3,000,000
        Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment (ASKME)       4,600,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
    Training, Equipment and Facilities:
        Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization........      13,800,000       5,393,000       5,393,000
        National Airspace System Training Facilities............      14,000,000       1,900,000       1,900,000
        Distance Learning.......................................       1,500,000       1,400,000       1,400,000
        National Airspace System (NAS) Training--Simulator......  ..............      14,600,000      14,600,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Activity 3.....................................     143,000,000     129,493,000     132,493,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
    System Engineering and Development Support..................      30,700,000      30,200,000      30,200,000
    Program Support Leases......................................      45,000,000      44,000,000      40,000,000
    Logistics Support Services (LSS)............................       7,900,000       7,500,000       7,500,000
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--Leases...................      13,500,000      13,500,000      13,500,000
    Transition Engineering Support..............................      27,980,000      10,700,000      10,700,000
    Frequency and Spectrum Engineering..........................       4,500,000       3,400,000       3,400,000
    Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC)..................      35,220,000      20,000,000      20,000,000
    Resource Tracking Program...................................       1,700,000       3,500,000       3,500,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.............      81,000,000      74,200,000      78,200,000
    NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information Programs................       4,000,000       9,000,000       9,000,000
    Permanent Change of Station Moves...........................  ..............       1,000,000       1,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Activity 4.........................................     251,500,000     217,000,000     217,000,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 5, Personnel Compensation, Benefits, and Travel:            436,117,000     459,973,000     459,973,000
 Personnel and Related Expenses.................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, All Activities.....................................   2,516,920,000   2,461,566,000   2,516,920,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION

    Runway Obstruction Warning System.--The Committee 
recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the ATDP budget line 
to continue development, enhancement, and evaluation of the 
Runway Obstruction Warning System at the test bed at Gulfport-
Biloxi Airport. Requested by Senator Cochran.
    Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for 
Safe Flight 21. These funds are critical to increasing flight 
safety and reducing the number of fatal accidents in Alaska and 
other areas. This program has proved to be invaluable in 
regards to testing and developing new technologies that benefit 
the entire National Airspace System, especially in regards to 
ADS-B and other NextGen initiatives. Requested by Senator 
Stevens.
    Aeronautical Data Link [ADL] Applications.--The Committee 
has not provided funding for Aeronautical Data Link 
applications through the Facilities and Equipment account as it 
appears that these expenditures are more operational in nature. 
Adequate funding has been provided in the Operations account to 
cover these costs.
    Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications [NEXCOM].--
The Committee has provided $30,400,000 for the Next Generation 
VHF Air/Ground Communications System [NEXCOM]. Under NEXCOM, 
the FAA is modernizing its air-to-ground communications 
equipment. While providing the full amount requested, the 
Committee remains disappointed with the program's slow rate of 
progress. The delays with the FTI program discussed above have 
had a negative impact on the development of this program, which 
is essential to any next generation air transportation system. 
At the end of 2005, the FAA rebaselined NEXCOM and delayed the 
full implementation of the program by 2 years. This delay was 
due largely to the fact that the FAA had to reallocate too much 
of its NEXCOM workforce to reforming the FTI program. As it 
builds the next generation system of air transportation, the 
FAA increasingly will be responsible for managing a larger 
portfolio of sophisticated capital programs. The Committee 
expects the FAA to manage each of these programs more 
responsibly than it has to date so that the deployment of the 
next generation system does not fall further behind.
    Louisville International Airport Demonstration Projects.--
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for demonstration projects 
at Louisville International Airport. These funds will be used 
for vital technology demonstrations, such as Surface Management 
System and Aircraft Surface Moving Map Display capabilities. 
These technology demonstrations will assist in the transition 
to the next step of ADS-B implementation, enabling continuous 
descent approaches during nighttime arrivals. Requested by 
Senator McConnell.
    System-Wide Information Management/Mobile Objects 
Technology.--The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the 
System-Wide Information Management [SWIM] program. The funding 
level is $3,000,000 more than the budget request, and $300,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The FAA has 
identified the SWIM program as the foundation for building the 
next generation air transportation system. Under SWIM, the FAA 
is developing a networked architecture that will enable all 
users of the national airspace to share information 
efficiently.
    The value of SWIM lies in its overall architecture rather 
than in its connectivity to any individual system. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the FAA to submit a report within 90 days 
of enactment that provides detailed information on how much of 
the SWIM budget has and will remain within the program office 
for the development of its core architecture versus the amount 
of funding that has and will be distributed to other program 
offices to establish individual connectivity. This report 
should also include an explanation of how the FAA will ensure 
connectivity between SWIM and all of the other systems or 
programs that need to be connected to it. The Committee 
requests the FAA to provide greater detail in its fiscal year 
2009 budget justification as to how much of the request for the 
SWIM budget would be utilized by other program offices. Within 
the amount provided for this program, the Committee directs 
that the $3,000,000 provided above the budget request be used 
for an evaluation and a demonstration of the capability of 
integrating mobile objects technology with the ongoing SWIM 
program. Requested by Senators Murray and Cantwell.
    Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast NAS Wide 
Implementation.--The Committee is again providing more funding 
than the level requested for the Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] program. The funding level 
provided, $97,354,000, is $11,704,000 more than the budget 
request and $17,354,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 
2007 enacted level. The FAA his identified ADS-B as a 
``transformational'' program for developing the next generation 
air transportation system. Under the ADS-B program, the FAA is 
developing satellite-based technology that will allow aircraft 
to broadcast their precise location, identification, and flight 
plan information to ground facilities as well as to other 
aircraft.
    The Committee is pleased to see that the FAA recognizes the 
central role that ADS-B technology will play in the development 
of the next generation air transportation system. However, the 
Committee remains concerned that the FAA maintains a short-
sighted view of the program by focusing its resources on 
developing ground-to-air capabilities without laying an 
adequate foundation for implementing air-to-air capabilities. 
While the ground-to-air technology will improve the safety and 
efficiency of the national airspace, the ``transformational'' 
power of the ADS-B technology will not be fully realized until 
the air-to-air technology is implemented.
    The Committee therefore directs the FAA to use the 
additional $11,704,000 provided for this program to expedite 
the development of air-to-air capabilities and bring those 
capabilities into service. The Committee does not recommend 
providing this additional $11,704,000 in order to increase the 
total cost of the program, but rather to bring the air-to-air 
capabilities to service more expeditiously.
    The Committee was pleased with the Administrator's 
testimony in which she reiterated her intention to require the 
installation of ADS-B technology across the universe of NAS 
users. The Committee was initially perplexed by reports that, 
in seeking vendors for the ADS-B technology, the FAA asked 
competitors to supply information on how their proposed 
solution would incentivize and encourage NAS users to equip 
with ADS-B. This technology will only reach its full potential 
for safety and efficiency if all users are required to 
participate. The sooner that participation is required, the 
sooner the system will achieve the promised safety and 
efficiency benefits. The Committee looks forward to reviewing 
the Administrator's proposed rule that will stipulate the 
agency's proposed installation timetable. That proposed rule, 
the Administrator testified, will be published in the fall of 
2007.
    NextGen Integrated Airport.--The Committee recommends 
$3,000,000 for the NextGen Integrated Airport project, to be 
located at Daytona Beach International Airport. This project is 
intended to provide for a national testing site for the 
technologies to be tested and deployed as part of the Next 
Generation Air Transportation System [NGATS]. The project is 
currently sponsored by both Embry Riddle Aeronautical 
University and some but not all of the potential vendors that 
might be expected to participate in NGATS. With the 
contribution of taxpayer funds toward this initiative, the 
Committee expects the FAA to ensure that measures are in place 
to guarantee that all potential vendors have the opportunity to 
benefit fully from this facility. Requested by Senator Bill 
Nelson.

  PROCUREMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND 
                               EQUIPMENT

    En Route Automation Modernization.--The Committee 
recommends $368,750,000 for the En Route Automation 
Modernization [ERAM] program. The funding level is equal to the 
budget request, and $7,803,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. According to the capital investment plan of the 
FAA, fiscal year 2008 will be the peak year of funding for this 
program. The Committee expects to see lower budget requests for 
ERAM in future years.
    Under the ERAM program, the FAA is replacing the computer 
network for the air traffic control facilities that manage 
high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this network is critical to 
allowing FAA to continue managing air traffic effectively. It 
is also an essential component of moving the FAA into the next 
generation of air traffic control. The Committee commends the 
FAA for, thus far, succeeding in managing this large and 
complicated program within its budget and schedule. A large 
part of the success of this program is due to the willingness 
of the FAA to follow sound management practices such as 
delineating all of the program requirements before signing a 
contract with an outside vendor. The FAA has not used these 
management practices as frequently or effectively on other 
agency procurements.
    The Committee understands that the most complicated work 
under the ERAM program must be completed over the next couple 
of years. Because ERAM is expected to serve as a foundation for 
many other next generation automation programs, any increase in 
the cost of ERAM or slip in its schedule could have a direct 
impact on the overall pace of developing the next generation 
system. The Committee urges the FAA to continue following sound 
management practices in order to ensure the success of this 
important program.
    Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommends $26,200,000 for Air/Ground Communications 
Infrastructure. The amount provided is $3,000,000 less than the 
budget request. The Committee expects the FAA to accommodate 
this funding level by slowing slightly the Communications 
Facilities Expansion [CFE] program. The FAA anticipates that 
its most critical communications projects can be accomplished 
within the $6,000,000 provided for CFE for fiscal year 2008.
    Wind Hazard Detection Equipment, Nevada.--The Committee 
recommends $1,100,000 for the purchase of Wind Tracer Wind 
Hazard Detection equipment, the transportation of this 
equipment from Colorado to Nevada, the installation of the 
equipment at McCarran International Airport, and the training 
of FAA staff on the equipment's use and maintenance. Wind 
Tracer is laser-driven equipment that measures winds, wind 
hazards, and turbulence in airport terminal areas in dry and 
clear air. The equipment allows detection and alerting of 
events such as dry micro-bursts, wind shears, and gust fronts. 
Requested by Senator Reid.
    Stand Alone Weather Sensors.--The Committee notes that the 
budget does not request funding for the Stand Alone Weather 
Sensors program. The Committee is concerned that significant 
taxpayer funds have been spent on this program only to have the 
FAA warehouse important weather monitoring stations for class C 
airports nationwide. The Committee directs the FAA 
Administrator to submit a report by March 15, 2008, to the 
Committee detailing the number of SAWS systems purchased and 
deployed, improvements in flight safety at deployed airports, 
safety impacts at class C airports yet to receive SAWS systems, 
accounting of current class C airports, and the FAA's plan to 
proceed with the original intent of SAWS deployment at all 
class C airports. Requested by Senator Murray.
    FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure.--The Committee 
recommends $8,500,000 for the FAA Telecommunications 
Infrastructure [FTI] program. The funding level is equal to the 
budget request, and $22,675,171 less than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The FTI program encompasses the replacement and 
modernization of the telecommunications infrastructure at FAA 
facilities. The FTI program was designed to bring about 
operational savings for the FAA by quickly moving the agency to 
a more efficient and less expensive array of communications 
equipment. The Committee expects that it will see the final 
investment of funds for the FTI program in the fiscal year 2009 
budget request.
    The FTI program is on the Administrator's list of major 
capital projects that is ``on-time'' and ``on-budget.'' Yet, 
just last year the FTI program had to be rebaselined because it 
had fallen behind schedule and exceeded its expected costs. The 
FAA extended its schedule by 1 full year, and the costs of the 
program have grown by more than $113,000,000. The program 
delays have forced the FAA to divert about $65,000,000 in 
unbudgeted operating costs to maintaining antiquated phones 
lines for an additional year because the new system is still 
not fully operational. This $65,000,000 could have been spent 
on higher priority concerns including boosting the safety staff 
of the FAA. Since the justification for the entire FTI program 
rests on moving quickly from one telecommunications system to 
the next, it is of utmost importance that FAA not have to 
rebaseline this program again.
    Senior management at the FAA have taken responsibility for 
some of the troubles with the FTI program by admitting that 
they did not give clear direction to FAA field personnel as to 
the importance of quickly making the transition to the new 
infrastructure. The Committee respects such candor, but remains 
concerned about the capability of the FAA to manage its capital 
programs efficiently. In order to meet the current schedule for 
FTI, management at the FAA needs to ensure the rapid transition 
of a large backlog of services and guarantee the reliability of 
the new communications service.
    Volcano Monitoring.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 
for the Volcano Monitoring program, an increase of $2,000,000 
over the budget request. The Alaska Volcano Monitoring/
Observatory program provides vital volcanic hazard monitoring 
equipment to monitor ash plumes and volcanic activity 
throughout Alaska. With adequate monitoring technologies in 
place, flights can be diverted away from problem areas and 
disruptions and fatalities can be avoided. Requested by Senator 
Stevens.
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X.--The 
Committee recommends $37,900,000 for the Airport Surface 
Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X] program. This funding 
level is equal to the budget request, and $32,700,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Runway incursions continue to be one of the most critical 
safety concerns of the aviation industry. The most deadly 
aviation accident in the world was a runway incursion that 
killed 583 people as two passenger jumbo jets collided on a 
Canary Islands airport in March 1977. The National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] has continued to call for 
the FAA to address runway incursions on its ``Most Wanted'' 
list ever since the Board began its list in 1990. Under the 
ASDE-X program, the FAA is developing equipment that is 
designed to prevent runway incursions by providing air traffic 
controllers with more accurate and detailed information about 
the current situation on airport surfaces. This program 
represents the FAA's primary response to the NTSB. The Board, 
however, still characterizes the response of the agency as 
``open'' and ``unacceptable,'' and the Committee is 
disappointed in how the FAA has managed the ASDE-X program.
    Although it is on the list of on-time and on-budget 
programs, the FAA rebaselined the program in September 2005. At 
the time of the rebaselining, the FAA added 53 months to the 
program schedule and $44,900,000 to its budget. The 
rebaselining, however, was even more significant in terms of 
how it restructured the goals of the entire program. The FAA 
decided that the agency could put the ASDE-X equipment to 
better use by installing it at large and medium airports rather 
than at small airports. Through the rebaselining process, the 
FAA dropped its target of installing ASDE-3 and ASDE-X 
technology at 59 large, medium and small airports, and the 
agency replaced it with a new target of installing ASDE-X at 35 
large and medium airports. Fifteen airports are not receiving 
any equipment following this rebaselining. The ASDE-X program 
illustrates the misleading nature of reporting on rebaselined 
programs as though they were simply on-time and on-budget. 
ASDE-X not only has a new schedule and budget, but it is 
serving a completely different purpose. In short, ASDE-X is no 
longer the same program.
    The Inspector General for the Department of Transportation 
testified before the Committee on May 10, saying that since the 
rebaselining in 2005, the ASDE-X program continues to fall 
behind schedule and experience cost increases. The Inspector 
General noted, ``. . . the cost to acquire and install some 
ASDE-X activities has increased by $94,000,000 since the 2005 
re-baseline. To stay within the revised baseline, FAA offset 
this cost by decreasing planned expenditures funds [sic] for 
seven other program activities, such as construction for later 
deployment sites.'' The Inspector General also explained that 
the FAA is not meeting its deadlines for installing ASDE-X 
equipment. The Committee no longer believes that the ASDE-X 
schedule or budget is realistic, and the Committee is concerned 
that the FAA continues to redefine the ASDE-X program in order 
to maintain the illusion that its schedule and budget are still 
relevant.
    The ASDE-X program is also an example where the agency has 
developed poor measures of program success. The FAA says that 
the program is on track to complete its last deployment by 
February 2011. However, the intermediate benchmarks that the 
FAA has developed to measure the progress of the program relate 
only to the delivery of ASDE-X equipment at each airport site. 
These benchmarks do not relate to the actual operation of ASDE-
X equipment at those airports. The Committee notes that, to 
date, the FAA has needed an average of 11 months between the 
delivery of the ASDE-X equipment and its full operation. As 
mentioned earlier in this report, new expensive pieces of 
equipment are of no use to the public unless they are fully 
operational. The Committee directs the FAA to develop deadlines 
for the initial operating capability and the operational 
readiness date for each of the remaining ASDE-X sites, and 
submit this information to the Committee. In addition, the FAA 
is directed to report to the Committee when the agency makes 
any substantial change to its schedule or budget for the ASDE-X 
program.
    As the program continues to experience trouble with its 
schedule and budget, the Committee is discouraged by the FAA's 
slow progress in achieving the goals of the program. The ASDE-X 
equipment functions poorly in rainy and inclement weather, the 
precise conditions under which air traffic controllers need 
assistance in order to prevent runway incursions. The ASDE-X 
equipment also does not yet provide any assistance to air 
traffic controllers for situations in which runways intersect 
or taxiways converge. These situations are common at airports, 
and were part of the original definition of the ASDE-X program. 
The Committee is concerned that the ASDE-X program will deliver 
less than promised even while it takes longer and costs more to 
complete.
    The performance of the ASDE-X equipment in rainy weather is 
of particular concern as the Committee hears numerous reports 
of significant trouble with this aspect of the program at the 
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac). Difficulties at 
SeaTac have led air traffic controllers to send a ground 
vehicle to the end of runway during foggy conditions in order 
to confirm that a false reading from ASDE-X was not, in fact, 
an aircraft. Controllers have been required to fill out 
hundreds of forms documenting such false alarms, and eventually 
the controllers lost confidence in its value, especially in 
rainy conditions. The Committee will continue to follow the 
development of ASDE-X at the Seattle airport, and urges the FAA 
to take all necessary steps to make the equipment an effective 
tool for the airport's air traffic controllers as soon as 
possible.
    The Committee is further discouraged by the failure of the 
FAA to take a disciplined approach to contracting with outside 
vendors on the ASDE-X program. The FAA entered into a cost-plus 
contract for most of the ASDE-X program, even while the program 
requirements were not well defined. In fact, the agency entered 
into fixed-price contract elements only for 41 percent of the 
program, mostly involving the procurement of the ASDE-X 
equipment. The FAA must manage the ASDE-X program more 
effectively than it has to date if this technology is going to 
serve its purpose and reduce the likelihood of runway 
incursions.
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $166,700,000 for new and 
replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON 
consolidation projects, an increase of $16,100,000 from the 
budget request.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                 Amount            Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin County Regional Airport      +$1,500,000  Hutchison/Cornyn
 at McKinney, TX--Tower
 Replacement.
Palm Springs Airport, CA--Tower      +1,500,000  Boxer
 Construction.
Barnstable Municipal Airport,        +4,000,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 MA--Tower Construction.
Nantucket Memorial Airport, MA--     +4,000,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Tower Replacement.
Greenwood Airport, MS--Tower         +1,500,000  Lott/Cochran
 Construction.
Gulfport-Biloxi International        +3,600,000  Cochran
 Airport, MS--Tower Replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kona, HI Tower Replacement Project.--The Committee remains 
concerned with the FAA's progress in replacing the aging air 
traffic control tower at Kona International Airport at Keahole, 
Hawaii. The Committee first appropriated funds for the 
replacement of this wooden structure in fiscal year 2005. Yet 
the FAA is only now beginning work to develop a site for the 
new facility. The Committee understands that the FAA will be 
ready to contract for the full construction of this project in 
2009 and expects the FAA to request in its 2009 budget all the 
funds necessary to award this contract as expeditiously as 
possible. The Committee will not entertain any further requests 
by the Administrator to reprogram funds already appropriated 
for this project to other tower sites.
    Chicago O'Hare Modernization Program.--The Committee 
directs the FAA to negotiate a construction-leaseback agreement 
with the O'Hare Modernization Program [OMP]. This agreement 
should represent an agreement between the OMP and the FAA for 
the reimbursement of funds to the OMP for costs related to the 
design and construction of the new airport traffic control 
tower [ATCT] at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. This can 
be accommodated through a construction-leaseback program 
similar to the agreement in place between the FAA and 
Washington Dulles International Airport. Requested by Senator 
Durbin.
    Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9].--The Committee has 
provided $11,300,000 for the Airport Surveillance Radar--Model 
9 [ASR-9] program. The amount provided is $5,000,000 more than 
the budget request. The Committee's monitoring of the needs of 
the O'Hare Modernization Project [OMP] indicate that this 
additional funding will be needed to site and install an 
additional ASR-9 at O'Hare to address the capacity demands that 
will be created by the project.
    Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance, Provo, Utah.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for preliminary site analysis, 
survey, and construction of a Multilateration Air Traffic 
Surveillance System to meet the unique radar coverage needs of 
the region around Provo Municipal Airport, Utah. The Committee 
has been concerned for several years regarding the level of 
radar coverage being provided for the mountainous areas around 
Provo, Utah, and is encouraged by the idea of using 
multilateration technologies to provide a safe, cost effective 
solution to Provo's needs. The Committee directs the FAA to 
work toward developing a solution that addresses the unique 
topographical challenges presented in and around Provo 
Municipal. Requested by Senators Bennett and Hatch.
    Radar Relocation, Bismarck Municipal Airport, North 
Dakota.--The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the relocation 
of an ASR-8 radar at Bismarck Municipal Airport, North Dakota. 
Requested by Senators Dorgan and Conrad.
    Terminal Radar, Santa Fe, New Mexico.--The Committee is 
aware of the desire for a terminal radar to serve the region of 
Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Committee encourages the FAA to work 
with Santa Fe and the State of New Mexico to improve radar 
coverage for the area. Requested by Senator Bingaman.
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP].--The Committee 
has provided $10,500,000 for the Voice Recorder Replacement 
Program. The amount provided is $4,600,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee is concerned by indications that this 
important program may not be progressing at a rate to enable 
all installations to be completed on schedule. As such, the 
Committee has added this additional funding to accelerate the 
installation of this equipment beyond the current rate.
    Flight Service Stations Modernization.--The Committee 
recommends $5,100,000 for Flight Service Stations [FSS] 
Modernization. The funding level is the same as the budget 
request, and $1,052,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level. Under FSS Modernization, the FAA has transitioned the 
operation of most of its flight service stations to a private 
vendor. This program also included the upgrade and 
consolidation of many of these facilities.
    The Committee is disappointed to hear reports of poor 
service levels in those flight service stations that were 
transitioned to a private vendor and consolidated. The most 
significant problems have included system outages, unanswered 
and dropped phone calls, excessive hold times, and poor quality 
briefings. Furthermore, many pilots complain that employees at 
the service stations are unable to provide weather information, 
file a flight plan, or supply critical notices to airmen. These 
problems threaten the safety of the general aviation community. 
Although these services have been contracted out to a private 
vendor, the Committee hold the FAA accountable to its promise 
of improved service. The Committee expects the FAA to take 
responsibility for this program and to resolve these issues 
quickly.
    The Committee is also concerned about an issue raised by 
the FAA's management of its fiscal year 2007 resources. The FAA 
has had more flexibility in allocating its funds for fiscal 
year 2007 than it has had in previous fiscal years. FAA used 
this flexibility to spend $8,085,106 in additional funds on 
FSS-related needs that the agency never disclosed to the 
Committee before reallocating for the needs of this program. Of 
this total addition to FSS-related funding, only $152,002 shows 
up under the FSS line item. The rest of the funding increase is 
masked in lines for FAA buildings and equipment, transition 
engineering and support, technical support services contract, 
and under the FTA Telecommunications Infrastructure program.
    The funds reallocated for FSS-related needs will cover the 
cost of repairing facilities, as well as moving, modifying, and 
installing equipment. The FAA anticipated all of these needs 
since the beginning of the program, and yet did not estimate 
any of their costs in the original budget for the FSS program. 
Although the FAA could not know in advance the exact number of 
consolidations that would occur under FSS, the design of the 
program rested on the agency achieving a minimum number of 
consolidations. The Committee is frustrated with the FAA's 
failure to disclose the true costs of the FSS program, and 
refusal to make a good faith effort at estimating all of its 
needs. The Committee expects that in the future the FAA will 
avoid obscuring costs in this manner for the FSS program or for 
any other capital program in its budget.
    The Committee has funded the budget request for FSS 
modernization for fiscal year 2008. Consistent with the budget 
request, these funds will be used solely to modernize stations 
in Alaska. Such stations were prohibited by law from being 
included in the FAA's privatization of this activity.
    Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.--The 
Committee recommends $14,950,000 for establishment of 
instrument landing systems. Adjustments to the budget request 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                 Amount            Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Municipal Airport, NE.       +$700,000  Nelson, Ben
Council Bluffs Municipal             +2,450,000  Harkin/Grassley
 Airport, IA.
Aiken Municipal Airport, SC....      +1,300,000  Graham
Piedmont Triad International         +1,500,000  Burr
 Airport, NC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The 
Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the procurement and 
installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including 
high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing 
lights [ALSF-2] and medium intensity approach lighting system 
[MALSR]. The amount provided is $3,000,000 more than the budget 
request. These additional resources shall be used to continue 
the program of providing lighting systems at rural airfields 
throughout Alaska. Requested by Senator Stevens.
    Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS].--
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Alaskan NAS 
Interfacility Communications System [ANICS]. The ANICS program 
plays a major role in increased flight safety in Alaska through 
providing updates and technical refreshes of old communications 
equipment to ensure that communication systems are reliable. 
Requested by Senator Stevens.
    Facilities Decommissioning--NDB.--The Committee recommends 
$5,400,000 for the Facilities Decommissioning program, a 
decrease of $2,600,000 from the administration's request. The 
Committee believes that the most cost beneficial sites can be 
accomplished within the funds provided.
    Electrical Power System--Sustain and Support.--The 
Committee recommends $38,000,000 for the Electrical Power 
Systems program, a decrease of $3,000,000 from the 
administration's request. The Committee expects the FAA to 
reorder projects within this program so that those projects 
with the strongest cost-benefit ratios can be executed in 
fiscal year 2008. This reduction is not expected to have any 
impact on National Airspace System [NAS] operations.
    Center for Aviation Safety Research.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the Center for Aviation Safety 
Research, Missouri, to focus on issues such as safety 
management systems, safety culture, maintenance resource 
management and crew management for commercial, corporate and 
private aviation. Requested by Senator Bond.
    Program Support Leases.--The Committee recommends 
$40,000,000 for program support leases. The amount provided is 
$4,000,000 less than the administration's request. The 
Committee is encouraged by FAA's ability to reduce lease costs 
for Air Traffic Control equipment. The funds provided are 
adequate to meet all of FAA's program support leases through 
fiscal year 2008.
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD].--
The Committee has provided additional funding beyond the 
President's budget request for a number of programs that are 
central to the deployment of the Next Generation Air Traffic 
Control System [NGATS]. These initiatives include additional 
funding for ADS-B, the SWIM program and the NextGen integrated 
airport initiative. The Committee is also providing a total of 
$78,200,000 to provide for additional positions at the Center 
for Advanced Aviation System Development to provide the 
Administrator with the technical expertise necessary to ensure 
the rapid deployment of NextGen technologies.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $130,234,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     140,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     148,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D] 
appropriation provides funding for long-term research, 
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic 
control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well 
as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as 
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the 
Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs are designed to 
meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to 
promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, 
equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to ensure that 
the system will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of 
aircraft traffic.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $148,800,000 for the FAA's 
research, engineering, and development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is $8,800,000 more than the budget 
request and $18,566,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.
    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--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2007 enacted    2008 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
    Fire Research and Safety....................................      $6,638,000      $7,350,000      $7,350,000
    Propulsion and Fuel System..................................       4,048,000       4,086,000       4,086,000
    Advance Material/Structural Safety..........................       2,843,000       2,713,000       7,713,000
    Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety...................       3,848,000       3,574,000       3,574,000
    Aging Aircraft..............................................      18,621,000      14,931,000      16,431,000
    Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research...........       1,512,000       2,202,000       2,202,000
    System Integration Human Factors............................       7,999,000       9,651,000       9,151,000
    Analysis....................................................       5,292,000       9,517,000       9,517,000
    Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors......       9,654,000      10,254,000      10,054,000
    Aeromedical Research........................................       7,032,000       6,780,000       7,780,000
    Weather Program.............................................      19,545,000      16,888,000      16,888,000
    Unmanned Aircraft System....................................       1,200,000       3,310,000       2,810,000
Improve Efficency:
    Joint Program and Development Office........................      18,100,000      14,321,000      14,321,000
    Wake Turbulence.............................................       3,066,000      10,755,000      13,755,000
    GPSCivil Requirements.......................................  ..............       3,600,000       3,100,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts: Environmental and Energy..........      16,018,000      15,469,000      15,469,000
Mission Support:
    System Planning and Resource Management.....................       1,388,000       1,184,000       1,184,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility......       3,430,000       3,415,000       3,415,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      RE&D Total................................................     130,234,000     140,000,000     148,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Advance Material/Structural Safety

    The Committee recommends $7,713,000 for advanced material/
structural safety, an increase of $5,000,000 more than the 
budget request and $4,870,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level.
    Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures 
[AMTAS].--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to support and 
improve ongoing composite and advanced material research at the 
Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures Center in 
Seattle, Washington. Requested by Senator Murray.
    Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Innovation Center 
[AMMIC].--The Committee recommends $750,000 to support 
continued integrated research, training and technology 
innovations in advanced manufacturing and materials science at 
the AMMIC center in Edmonds, Washington. Requested by Senator 
Murray.
    Jet Engine Technology [JET] Inspection, Iowa.--The 
Committee recommends $750,000 for the development of advanced 
inspection techniques of jet engine components and materials. 
The jet engine technology [JET] inspection program will ensure 
that the use of a new materials and design approaches aimed at 
improving fuel efficiency still maintains an adequate margin of 
safety. Requested by Senators Harkin and Grassley.
    Support of Aircraft Fleet Evaluation Research [SAFER], 
Iowa.--The Committee recommends $500,000 to advance the 
development of inspection technologies aimed at supporting the 
continued airworthiness of the commercial airline fleet. The 
majority of inspection research supported by the FAA has 
addressed issues associated with aging aircraft. However, as 
older aircraft are replaced by a new generation of aircraft 
designed for greater fuel efficiency, it will be increasingly 
important to inspect new designs and innovative materials 
systems for their airworthiness. Requested by Senators Harkin 
and Grassley.
    National Institute for Aviation Research.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000 for the National Institute for Aviation 
Research at Wichita State University, Kansas, to upgrade 
equipment and facilities for the Institute's Advanced Materials 
Research program. Requested by Senator Brownback.

Aging Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $16,431,000 for aging aircraft, an 
increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$2,190,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Research on Small Aircraft, Kansas.--The Committee 
recommends $1,000,000 for research at the National Institute 
for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, to research 
the effects of aging on small aircraft. Requested by Senators 
Brownback and Roberts.
    Airframe Maintenance Technology AAS Degree Program, 
Delaware.--The Committee recommends $500,000 to implement at 
the Delaware Technical and Community College an FAA-approved 
Airframe Maintenance Technology AAS Degree program. The 
recommended funding will provide the start-up equipment and 
tooling necessary for outfitting the classrooms and labs before 
the program is able to accept students. Requested by Senator 
Carper.

Aeromedical Research

    The Committee recommends $7,780,000 for aeromedical 
research, an increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget 
request and $748,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level. The Committee continues to be concerned about the issue 
of flight attendant fatigue, and whether current regulations 
provide adequate rest time for flight attendants. Pursuant to 
the Committee's request in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
of 2005, the FAA submitted a report in July 2006 on the impact 
of the minimum rest requirements of FAR 121.467 and FAR 
135.273. The study was limited in nature; however, the report 
stated that flight attendants are ``experiencing fatigue and 
tiredness and as such, (fatigue) is a salient issue warranting 
further evaluation.'' In order to gain a fuller understanding 
of the impact of fatigue on flight attendants, the Committee 
directs FAA to utilize $1,000,000 of its appropriation for CAMI 
to carry out its recommendations for further study of this 
problem. The Committee directs CAMI to submit a report to 
Congress not later than December 31, 2009, and expects the 
report to include analysis in the six areas that CAMI 
identified in its report of July 2006; a survey of field 
operations, a focused study of incident reports, field research 
on the effects of fatigue, a validation of models for assessing 
flight attendant fatigue, international policies and practices, 
and the potential benefits of training.

                           IMPROVE EFFICIENCY

Wake Turbulence

    The Committee recommends $13,755,000 for wake turbulence, 
an increase of $3,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$10,689,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 
Committee is providing the increase of $3,000,000 to the budget 
request for Spiroid Winglet Fuel Efficiency Research. The 
spiroid research project will explore next generation winglet 
designs and technologies to enhance wing lift and stability, 
and to generate increased aircraft fuel efficiency. Requested 
by Senator Murray.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, 2007......................   $4,399,000,000   $3,514,500,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................    4,300,000,000    2,750,000,000
Committee recommendation..............    4,399,000,000    3,514,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital 
improvements at the Nation's airports, including those 
investments that emphasize capacity development, safety 
improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for 
funding under this program include improvements to runway 
safety areas that do not conform to FAA standards, investments 
that are designed to reduce runway incursions, and aircraft 
noise compatibility planning and programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$3,514,500,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 
2008, which is $764,500,000 more than the budget estimate and 
equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee 
recommendation is sufficient to continue the important tasks of 
enhancing airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport 
standards continue to be met, maintaining existing airport 
capacity, and developing additional capacity.
    In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash 
appropriation of $4,399,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. 
The recommended level is $99,000,000 above the budget estimate 
and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. This 
appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all 
obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations 
set forward in the bill.
    Airport Discretionary Grants.--Of the funds covered by the 
obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA 
to provide funding, out of available resources, for those 
projects listed in the table below 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 2008 obligation limitation. The 
Committee further directs that the specific funding allocated 
in the table below shall not diminish or prejudice the 
application of a specific airport or geographic region to 
receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year letters of 
intent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State           Airport Name                 Project Description          Amount             Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   AK Akutan                         Construction of an airport....    $3,500,000  Stevens
   AL Franklin Field                 Land acquisition, design and       2,250,000  Shelby
                                      construction, relocation and
                                      extension of the existing
                                      runway and renovation of
                                      airport facility.
   AR Northwest Arkansas Regional    Construct second landing           4,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
                                      surface.
   AR Texarkana Regional--Webb       Construct new Aircraft             1,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
       Field                          Firefighting and Rescue
                                      Station.
   AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor             Taxiway/ramp airfield                750,000  Kyl
       International                  improvements.
   CO Denver International           Concrete repairs to three          3,000,000  Salazar
                                      runways.
   ID Boise                          Planning, design, and              1,250,000  Craig/Crapo
                                      construction to widen and
                                      lengthen Runway 9/27.
   IL Lake in the Hills              Relocation of parallel taxiway     1,000,000  Durbin
   IL Lewis University               Extension of runway and            1,000,000  Durbin/Obama
                                      taxiway.
   IL Waukegan Regional              Runway extension, land             1,000,000  Durbin
                                      acquisition and environmental
                                      study.
   IN Fort Wayne International       Install guidance signs........       250,000  Bayh/Lugar
   KS Manhattan Regional             Runway safety area                 2,000,000  Brownback
                                      improvements.
   KY Louisville International       Widen runway 17R-35L to            3,250,000  McConnell
                                      accommodate Group VI aircraft.
   LA Alexandria International       Runway extension and upgrades.     1,000,000  Vitter/Landrieu
   MI Capital City                   Relocation of DeWitt Road and      5,000,000  Stabenow/Levin
                                      purchase of land for runway
                                      extension.
   MI MBS International              New terminal building.........     2,000,000  Stabenow/Levin
   MN St. Cloud                      Land acquisition..............     1,500,000  Coleman/Klobuchar
   MO Columbia Regional              Widen and extend runway 13-31.     2,700,000  Bond
   MO Eldon Model Airpark            Construct runway 18/36--Phase        420,000  Bond
                                      I.
   MO Max B. Swisher Skyhave         Update and expand runway and       1,380,000  Bond
                                      terminal.
   MS Gulfport-Biloxi                Taxiway construction and           2,100,000  Cochran/Lott
                                      rehabilitation, noise
                                      mitigation.
   MS Jackson-Evers International    Rehabilitation and extension       2,100,000  Cochran
                                      of taxiways and runways.
   MS John Bell Williams             Runway extension and taxiway..     2,000,000  Lott
   MS Tunica                         Runway and parallel taxi           1,300,000  Cochran
                                      extension and paving.
   NC Statesville Regional           Improve and extend runways,        1,000,000  Dole/Burr
                                      ramp areas, and taxiways.
   ND Grand Forks International      Construction of a runway......     2,000,000  Conrad/Dorgan
   NE Airport Authority of the       Maintenance of Airport runways     1,000,000  Nelson, Ben
       County of Scotts Bluff         and taxiways, safety factors.
   NM Albuquerque International      Construction of aircraft           2,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
       Sunport                        parking ramp.
   NV Carson City                    Replace pavement and               3,000,000  Reid
                                      realignment of the single
                                      runway.
   NY Niagara Falls International    Construct new terminal apron..     2,500,000  Schumer/Clinton
   OR McNary Field                   Expand runway capacity........     1,500,000  Wyden/Smith
   OR Roberts Field, Redmond         Expand the terminal...........     3,750,000  Wyden/Smith
       Municipal
   PA Erie International             Extend Runway 06-24...........     1,500,000  Specter
   TN Upper Cumberland Regional      Complete runway and taxiway        1,000,000  Alexander
                                      extensions.
   TX San Marcos Municipal           Terminal and t-hangar              2,250,000  Hutchison
                                      construction.
   VT Rutland State Airport          Installation of MALSR lighting     2,000,000  Leahy
                                      and an instrument landing
                                      system.
   VT Vermont Statewide              Various improvements..........     1,500,000  Sanders
   WI Chippewa Valley Regional       Redesign terminal; improve         3,250,000  Kohl
                                      terminal; and airside and
                                      landside improvements.
   WV West Virginia Statewide        Various improvements..........     6,000,000  Byrd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$80,676,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is $170 less than the budget estimate, and $5,705,170 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends 
$10,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 
funding level is equal to the budget estimate, and equal to 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $18,712,000 
for airport technology research. This funding level is $74 less 
than the budget request, and $842,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level.
    Small Community Air Service Development.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 to administer to the Small Community Air 
Service Development Program. This funding level is equal to 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The budget estimate did not 
include funding for this program.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                 (RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, 2007........................................    $621,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     185,500,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of contract 
authorization of $185,500,000 of unobligated balances of 
contract authority.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at 
the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more 
than 375 in fiscal year 2007.
    Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt 
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide 
the FAA ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or space for 
FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations 
between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning ``below 
market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances that 
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
    Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA 
appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 
41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 
45303.
    Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for 
providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities 
to be credited to the Operations account.
    Section 114 extends the terms and conditions of the 
aviation insurance program, commonly known as ``war risk 
insurance,'' and the limitation on air carrier liability for 
third party claims arising out of acts of terrorism.
    Section 115 includes legislative provisions pertaining to 
the retirement age of commercial pilots.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 
[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 
foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective 
highway and intermodal system nationwide including access to 
and within national forests, national parks, indian lands and 
other public lands.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level 
of $40,256,051,359 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2007. The 
recommendation is $670,975,955 more than the budget request, 
and $275,970,324 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations 
(excluding rescissions):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2007 enacted      2008 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation......    $39,086,464,683    $39,585,075,404    $40,216,051,359
Pay raise (section 11 of Public Law 110-5).............          2,794,352  .................  .................
Emergency relief program (Public Law 110-28)...........        871,022,000  .................  .................
Appalachian development highway system.................         19,800,000  .................         20,000,000
Delta regional transportation development..............  .................  .................         20,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     39,980,081,035     39,585,075,404     40,256,051,359
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is acutely concerned that the current 
balances and projected receipts to the Highway Trust Fund are 
not sufficient to continue funding the levels authorized for 
the Federal-aid highway program or the important highway and 
motor carrier safety programs through fiscal year 2009. The 
chart below displays projections by the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Office of Management and Budget of balances to 
the Highway Trust Fund if the authorized levels are provided 
for the pertinent highway and safety programs. 


    In testimony before the Committee on February 8, the 
Secretary acknowledged that ``The highway funding problem is 
not going to go away, nor can we put it off until the last 
minute. So as we go through this budget process, I hope to 
start working with Congress now on solutions for long-term 
funding.'' The Committee concurs in the Secretary's observation 
even though it hasn't heard any concrete ideas or solutions 
offered by the Secretary since her statement. This problem must 
be addressed urgently so that the Committee can adequately fund 
the Nation's highway infrastructure needs in fiscal year 2009. 
Absent adequate revenues to replenish the trust fund, the 
Congress could be required to dramatically and precipitously 
cut highway investments nationwide simply to keep the trust 
fund solvent. For that reason, the Committee was pleased to 
receive the written assurances from the bipartisan leadership 
of the Senate Finance Committee, stating that they are 
``dedicated to finding the necessary revenues to keep the 
Highway Trust Fund whole for the life of the current 
authorization.'' The urgency of addressing this problem in the 
near term cannot be overstated.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $360,991,620
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     384,556,000
Committee recommendation................................     377,556,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries 
and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program 
management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance 
to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support 
services in field offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$377,556,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This 
limitation is $7,000,000 less than the budget request and 
$16,564,380 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Of the total obligation limitation requested by the FHWA 
for administrative expenses, the agency has asked for just over 
$15,000,000 in order to fill 210 vacant positions. These 
vacancies are primarily for engineers, planners, financial 
managers, and other specialists. Of the total number of 
vacancies, 106 are located at FHWA headquarters.
    The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 
agency to fill its most critical vacancies. The Committee also 
directs the FHWA to submit within 90 days a detailed staffing 
plan, which includes target staffing levels at both 
headquarters offices and in the field, the location and job 
title of each vacancy, and an explanation for how the specified 
increases to the agency staffing level would improve the 
operations of the FHWA. The staffing plan should detail actions 
that the FHWA intends to take during fiscal year 2008, as well 
as further needs that the agency hopes to address through the 
fiscal year 2009 budget process.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2007........................................ $39,086,464,683
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  39,585,075,404
Committee recommendation................................  40,216,051,359

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support 
to States and localities for development, construction, and 
repair of highways and bridges through grants. The program is 
financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are 
distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. 
Title 23 of the United States Code and other supporting 
legislation provide authority for the various activities of the 
FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program 
levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in 
appropriations acts.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2008 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $40,216,051,359, which is 
$630,975,955 more than the budget request, and $1,129,586,676 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2008 Federal-
aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting 
fiscal year 2008 obligations on transportation research to 
$429,800,000. The recommendation is equal to the budget 
request, and it is consistent with the authorized level. This 
specific limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology programs of the FHWA, and it includes 
the intelligent transportation systems; surface transportation 
research; technology deployment, training and education; 
university transportation research; and the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.
    The Committee also recommends funding the Congestion 
Initiative at the Department of Transportation at a level of 
$135,775,955. The Congestion Initiative includes several 
discreet elements that are designed to mitigate the impact of 
traffic congestion in metropolitan areas and along significant 
transportation corridors. The largest element of the initiative 
is the creation of urban partnerships between the Department of 
Transportation and metropolitan areas that promise to implement 
a comprehensive plan involving congestion pricing, transit 
services, telecommuting and flexible work schedules, and the 
use of innovative technology. Other important elements of the 
initiative include work to facilitate multi-state 
transportation corridors (``Corridors of the Future''), the 
focus of technical support on severe bottlenecks to freight 
transportation, and the innovative use of technology to 
mitigate traffic congestion.
    The Committee commends the Department for taking an active 
role in addressing the important issue in congestion. The 
Committee also acknowledges the personal involvement and level 
of effort that the Secretary has taken in the development of 
this initiative.
    The Committee cannot fund this initiative in the manner 
proposed by the President--namely, by redirecting resources 
that have already been dedicated to other priority 
transportation projects, as requested by the Department. The 
Congressional Budget Office has disqualified this option as a 
legitimate budget-neutral offset for this initiative. In 
addition, the Committee does not support cancelling other 
projects in order to fund this initiative. Rather, the 
Committee has funded this initiative by redirecting resources 
not yet apportioned under the Revenue Alligned Budget Authority 
[RABA] program.
    Consistent with the Secretary's initiative, the bill 
includes a provision requested in the budget that allows the 
FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services 
of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance 
to assist the agency in the provision of TIFIA credit 
instruments.
    The following table displays the amount of obligation 
limitation that was distributed to each State in fiscal year 
2007, that would be distributed to each State under the FHWA 
budget request, and that would be distributed to each State 
under the funding level recommended by the Committee:

                          ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION TO THE STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                         State                          --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2007 enacted      2008 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................................       $616,549,671       $654,741,253       $654,741,253
ALASKA.................................................        268,984,812        297,610,036        297,610,036
ARIZONA................................................        608,319,903        608,413,742        608,413,742
ARKANSAS...............................................        383,105,107        415,595,114        415,595,114
CALIFORNIA.............................................      2,688,344,086      3,159,864,049      3,159,864,049
COLORADO...............................................        409,183,629        445,670,512        445,670,512
CONNECTICUT............................................        406,571,023        430,384,239        430,384,239
DELAWARE...............................................        121,181,507        131,983,190        131,983,190
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA...................................        126,497,742        132,894,607        132,894,607
FLORIDA................................................      1,585,543,079      1,570,688,196      1,570,688,196
GEORGIA................................................      1,094,488,911      1,157,564,829      1,157,564,829
HAWAII.................................................        130,305,474        136,856,219        136,856,219
IDAHO..................................................        228,508,722        242,576,028        242,576,028
ILLINOIS...............................................      1,033,163,070      1,141,333,677      1,141,333,677
INDIANA................................................        795,042,623        832,814,575        832,814,575
IOWA...................................................        336,721,931        361,576,329        361,576,329
KANSAS.................................................        315,685,096        332,551,764        332,551,764
KENTUCKY...............................................        533,868,416        565,490,861        565,490,861
LOUISIANA..............................................        469,195,077        513,550,231        513,550,231
MAINE..................................................        139,579,368        150,404,519        150,404,519
MARYLAND...............................................        500,894,869        515,237,935        515,237,935
MASSACHUSETTS..........................................        511,837,402        541,940,579        541,940,579
MICHIGAN...............................................        930,935,426      1,051,713,308      1,051,713,308
MINNESOTA..............................................        485,585,015        568,542,874        568,542,874
MISSISSIPPI............................................        367,255,281        391,510,985        391,510,985
MISSOURI...............................................        713,638,452        774,002,714        774,002,714
MONTANA................................................        294,932,864        313,280,274        313,280,274
NEBRASKA...............................................        228,415,038        243,676,747        243,676,747
NEVADA.................................................        214,993,211        212,990,680        212,990,680
NEW HAMPSHIRE..........................................        140,780,427        147,522,240        147,522,240
NEW JERSEY.............................................        841,313,477        849,381,509        849,381,509
NEW MEXICO.............................................        290,061,270        314,985,665        314,985,665
NEW YORK...............................................      1,396,086,909      1,464,779,677      1,464,779,677
NORTH CAROLINA.........................................        894,013,564        939,625,320        939,625,320
NORTH DAKOTA...........................................        193,341,246        206,034,763        206,034,763
OHIO...................................................      1,114,854,934      1,216,841,504      1,216,841,504
OKLAHOMA...............................................        470,595,869        504,360,313        504,360,313
OREGON.................................................        347,705,929        377,344,456        377,344,456
PENNSYLVANIA...........................................      1,389,376,513      1,454,518,380      1,454,518,380
RHODE ISLAND...........................................        155,183,242        163,100,734        163,100,734
SOUTH CAROLINA.........................................        523,952,440        524,665,948        524,665,948
SOUTH DAKOTA...........................................        202,817,995        220,787,059        220,787,059
TENNESSEE..............................................        675,192,691        708,483,718        708,483,718
TEXAS..................................................      2,639,825,359      2,671,100,705      2,671,100,705
UTAH...................................................        225,317,398        235,723,736        235,723,736
VERMONT................................................        130,067,666        143,414,064        143,414,064
VIRGINIA...............................................        835,037,989        868,661,604        868,661,604
WASHINGTON.............................................        529,894,520        566,928,375        566,928,375
WEST VIRGINIA..........................................        330,173,460        356,146,435        356,146,435
WISCONSIN..............................................        601,107,544        638,231,517        638,231,517
WYOMING................................................        201,565,716        225,244,884        225,244,884
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL.........................................     30,667,592,963     32,693,342,672     32,693,342,672
High Priority Projects.................................      2,731,211,503      2,824,012,800      2,824,012,800
Allocated Programs.....................................      5,687,660,217      4,067,719,932      4,067,719,932
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL............................................     39,086,464,683     39,585,075,404     39,585,075,404
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

    The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway 
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the 
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States 
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best 
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's 
assistance and oversight.
    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the highway, 
highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 
2009, makes Federal-aid highways funds available in various 
categories of spending.
    The following table reflects an estimated distribution of 
obligations among the largest of the Federal-aid highway 
program categories, and the table is followed by a more 
detailed discussion of many of the categories of Federal-aid 
highway spending: (The obligation limitation recommended by the 
Committee is applicable to most of these program categories, 
but the resources for certain categories of spending are exempt 
from the limitation).

                  ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SPENDING
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
              Federal-aid highway category              --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2007 enacted      2008 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending subject to obligation limitation:
    National highway system............................              6,770              8,237              8,237
    Interstate maintenance.............................              4,541              5,525              5,525
    Surface transportation program.....................              8,288              9,906              9,906
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation..............              4,123              5,017              5,017
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement..              1,077              1,081              1,081
    Highway safety improvement.........................                321                322                322
    Equity Bonus.......................................              2,524              2,734              2,734
    Transportation infrastructure finance and                          131                 93                 93
     innovation........................................
    High priority projects.............................              2,536              1,295              1,295
    Projects of national and regional significance.....                433                306                306
    Other categories of spending.......................              8,870              5,206              5,206
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.........................................             39,614             39,722             39,722
                                                        ========================================================
Spending exempt from obligation limitation:
    Emergency relief...................................                192                123                123
    Equity bonus.......................................                719                671                671
    Priority projects from previous authorization bills                 92                 49                 49
    Direct loan reestimate.............................                  7  .................  .................
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.........................................              1,010                843                843
                                                        ========================================================
Emergency relief (from supplemental authority).........                583  .................  .................
Reimbursable program...................................                120                120                120
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total obligations................................             41,327             40,685             40,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Highway System [NHS].--The Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the 
NHS, which was subsequently established as a 161,000 mile road 
system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. 
This system serves major population centers, intermodal 
transportation facilities, international border crossings, and 
major destinations. The NHS program provides funding for this 
system consisting of roads that are of primary Federal 
interest. The NHS consists of the current Interstate, other 
rural principal arterials, urban freeways and connecting urban 
principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department's 
designated Strategic Highway Network, and roads connecting the 
NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS 
program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 
adjustment, with an availability period of 4 years.
    Interstate Maintenance [IM].--The 46,876 mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction that 
increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for 
IM funds. The Federal share for the IM program is 90 percent, 
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are 
available for 4 years.
    Within the funding available to the interstate maintenance 
discretionary program, funds are to be made available to the 
following projects and activities:

                         INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
          Project name            recommendation       Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-225 at Colfax Avenue and 17th       $1,000,000  Salazar/Allard
 Avenue, CO.
Brent Spence Bridge Study, OH..        1,000,000  Brown/Voinovich
City of Columbus Interstate 70/          500,000  Voinovich
 71 Cap Project, OH.
Columbia River Crossing, OR....        1,000,000  Smith, G./Wyden
Fairview Street/I-385                    500,000  Graham, L
 Interchange, SC.
Fernley Interchange at I-80, NV        1,000,000  Ensign
Green River Area Transportation          500,000  Bunning
 Corridor 2025 Plan, KY.
H-1 Improvements Kinau and             5,000,000  Inouye
 Lusitana Ramps Project, HI.
I-15 Bluff Street Interchange,         1,000,000  Hatch/Bennett
 UT.
I-15 Helena Custer Avenue              1,500,000  Tester/Baucus
 Interchange, MT.
I-15 Widening and Interchanges,        1,000,000  Ensign/Reid
 Las Vegas, NV.
I-29/52nd Avenue Interchange,          1,000,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 ND.
I-295, Exit 4 Improvement                500,000  Collins/Snowe
 Project, ME.
I-40/I-77 interchange in               1,000,000  Dole
 Iredell County, NC.
I-49 North, LA.................        1,000,000  Vitter/Landrieu
I-5/I-205 Salmon Creek                 1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Interchange Project, WA.
I-5/Port of Tacoma Interchange         1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Improvement Project, WA.
I-5/SR510 Lacey Interchange              500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Improvement Project, WA.
I-71 Corridor Access                     500,000  Voinovich
 Improvements in Cincinnati, OH.
I-80, Westbound Bridge over            1,000,000  Hagel
 Missouri River, NE.
I-84 Burnt River Canyon, OR....        2,000,000  Wyden/Smith G
I-84, Curtis Road to Broadway          1,500,000  Crapo/Craig
 Interchange Widening, ID.
I-85 at CR 98/Gabbettville             1,500,000  Chambliss
 Road, Troup Co., GA.
I-95 in Cumberland, Harnett,           1,000,000  Dole
 and Johnston Counties, NC.
I-95/US 301 Interchange, SC....          500,000  Graham, L
IH-35W Congestion Relief, TX...          500,000  Hutchison
Improvement of Highland Pike             500,000  Bunning
 (KY 1072) To Farrell Drive, KY.
Interstate 25 Reconstruction,          1,000,000  Enzi/Thomas
 Glenrock to Casper Hat Six
 Section, WY.
Interstate 29 Reconstruction/          1,500,000  Grassley/Harkin
 Utility Relocation, Sioux
 City, IA.
Interstate 69/Great River              4,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway
 1, AR.
Meadowood Interchange Complex,           500,000  Reid
 NV.
Southern Nevada Beltway                1,500,000  Reid/Ensign
 Interchanges, NV.
Turnpike Improvements Project,         2,000,000  Biden/Carper
 DE.
US 278 Corridor Construction,            500,000  Graham, L
 SC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 suballocations are 
provided. The Federal share for STP is generally 80 percent, 
subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with a 4-year 
availability period.
    Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.--The bridge program 
enables States to improve the condition of their bridges 
through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 
maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges, 
including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor 
collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have a 4-year 
period of availability with a Federal share for all projects, 
except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject 
to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the 
Interstate System, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to 
the sliding scale adjustment.
    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 
[CMAQ].--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 
projects and programs to help meet and maintain national 
ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and 
particulate matter. A minimum one-half percent of the 
apportionment is guaranteed to each State.
    Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].--The highway 
infrastructure safety program features strategic safety 
planning and performance. The program also devotes additional 
resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing 
highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
    Federal Lands Highways.--This category funds improvements 
for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian 
reservation roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway 
program provides for transportation planning, research, 
engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and 
transit facilities that provide access to or within public 
lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.
    Within the funding available for the Federal lands highway 
program, funds are to be made available to the following 
projects and activities:

                         FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project               recommendation       Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
116th Street NE Interchange           $1,500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Improvement Project, Tulalip
 Tribes, WA.
17-Mile Road Reconstruction,           3,000,000  Enzi/Thomas
 Wind River Indian Reservation,
 WY.
Bear River Access Road Forest          1,250,000  Hatch/Bennett
 Street Improvements Project,
 UT.
BIA Route 14 (Gooseneck Road)--        1,692,000  Johnson
 Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD.
BIA Route 27--Oglala Sioux             1,000,000  Johnson
 Tribe, SD.
BRAC-related Improvements in           3,000,000  Mikulski/Cardin
 Harford County, MD.
City of Rocks Back Country             3,000,000  Crapo/Craig
 Byway, ID.
Federal Lands Program, State of        1,500,000  Inouye
 Hawaii.
Fidalgo Bay Road Improvement             500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Project, Samish Tribe, WA.
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ...        3,000,000  Kyl
I-80 at Vista Boulevard and            1,000,000  Reid
 McCarran Boulevard, NV.
Kenel Road Rehabilitation and          2,000,000  Johnson
 Resurfacing--Standing Rock
 Sioux Tribe, SD.
MD355 Corridor Improvement from        3,000,000  Mikulski/Cardin
 Woodmont Avenue to I-495 or
 other improvements
 necessitated by BRAC-
 realignment at Bethesda Naval
 Hospital, MD.
Pave from the Sitting Bull               848,000  Thune
 Monument to US 12 and from US
 12 to north of SD 1806P from
 SD 1806 to the end of the
 pavement in Wakpala, SD.
Safety Project on the                  1,750,000  Bond
 Environmental Effects of Dust
 Suppressant Chemicals on
 Federal Lands Highways, MO.
SD 44 and SD 73, Paving in               900,000  Thune
 Jackson and Mellette Counties,
 SD.
Skokomish Tribe Access Road and        1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 US-101 Realignment, WA.
SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway--          3,000,000  Ensign/Reid
 Clark and Nye Counties, NV.
State Highway 150 (US 160 N. to        3,000,000  Salazar/Allard
 Great Sand Dunes), CO.
US 212, Paving from Eagle Butte        1,000,000  Thune/Johnson
 to East of the SD 63 East
 Junction, Serving Cheyenne
 River Reservation, SD.
Vermont Federal Lands Projects,          500,000  Leahy
 VT.
West Jemez Bypass Construction,        2,000,000  Bingaman
 Los Alamos County, NM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equity Bonus.--The equity bonus program 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 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, or 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. Of 
the total amount of funds provided for this program, each year 
$639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation 
recommended by the Committee.
    Emergency Relief [ER].--Section 125 of title 23, United 
States Code, provides $100,000,000 annually for the ER program. 
This funding is not subject to the obligation limitation 
recommended by the Committee. This program provides funds for 
the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and 
bridges and federally owned roads and bridges that have 
suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or 
catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the 
commitment of resources by States, their political 
subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually 
heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
    Highways for Life.--This program provides funding to 
demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated 
performance standards, and new business practices in the 
highway construction process that result in improved safety, 
faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and 
improved quality and user satisfaction by inviting innovation, 
new technologies, and new practices to be used in highway 
construction and operations.
    The Committee is concerned that an existing Federal 
regulation, 23 CFR 635.411, may serve to limit the development 
of new products and discourage innovation in highway 
construction and operations. Known as the ``proprietary 
products'' rule, this regulation imposes broad restrictions 
against the States' ability to use proprietary methods, 
materials, and equipment on Federal-aid projects. As a result, 
States may find it difficult or impossible to utilize 
innovative methods, materials, or equipment on Federal-aid 
projects, even when such innovations would improve safety, 
reduce congestion, or increase the quality and durability of 
the State's road network.
    The Committee urges the Secretary to review 23 CFR 635.411 
and take action to ensure that the regulation does not 
unnecessarily impede or delay any State's decision to utilize 
innovative methods, materials, or equipment that could improve 
safety, reduce congestion, or increase the quality and 
durability of highways.
    Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--This program 
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry 
terminal facilities.
    Within the funding available to the ferry boats and ferry 
terminal facilities program, funds are to be made available to 
the following projects and activities:

                FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project               recommendation       Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferry Wahkiakum Replacement, WA         $200,000  Murray/Cantwell
Glen Cove Ferry Terminal, NY...        1,000,000  Schumer/Clinton
Haverstraw Ferry Terminal, NY..          400,000  Clinton/Schumer
Kitsap Transit, Rich-Passage           2,200,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Wake Impact Study, WA.
North Carolina Statewide Ferry         3,100,000  Dole
 System, NC.
Oak Bluffs Terminal                    1,000,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Reconstruction Project, MA.
Port of Detroit Public Dock and        3,500,000  Levin/Stabenow
 Terminal Project, MI.
River Ferry Boat Transportation        2,500,000  Inhofe
 Program, City of Oklahoma
 City, OK.
San Francisco Bay Area Water           1,000,000  Feinstein
 Transit Ferry Boat, CA.
Swan's Island Ferry Facilities,        2,500,000  Collins/Snowe
 ME.
Vashon Island Passenger Ferry,           600,000  Murray/Cantwell
 WA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Scenic Byways.--This program provides funding for 
roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as 
All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These 
roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, 
recreational, and archaeological qualities.
    Transportation and Community and System Preservation 
[TCSP].--The TCSP program provides grants to States and local 
governments for planning, developing, and implementing 
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system 
preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to 
improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the 
impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need 
for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and 
provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of 
trade.
    Within the funding available to the transportation and 
community and system preservation program, funds are to be made 
available to the following projects and activities:

      TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project               recommendation       Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access road to the Veterans           $1,400,000  Byrd
 Affairs Medical Center,
 Raleigh County, Beckley, WV.
Clayton Pedestrian Grade                 525,000  Burr
 Separation, Johnston County,
 NC.
Cobb Parkway Expansion, GA.....          500,000  Isakson
Connersville Intermodal Study,           500,000  Lugar
 Connersville, IN.
Construction and Improvements            500,000  Roberts
 to County Road One (RS-209)
 south of I-70 to K-32,
 Leavenworth County, KS.
Des Moines Creek Trail Access            500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Project, WA.
Downtown Development Authority           500,000  Chambliss
 Streetscape, Dahlonega, GA.
Ellsworth Air Force Base Road          1,000,000  Thune
 Improvement, SD.
Flats East Bank Road                     500,000  Voinovich/Brown
 Relocations and Improvements
 Project, OH.
Fort Knox Park & Ride Express            500,000  Bunning
 on US 31W, KY.
Hofstra University's Safe and          1,000,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Sustainable Campus Plan, NY.
I-10 Widening in Western                 500,000  Kyl
 Maricopa County, AZ.
I-25 at State Highway 16 (Fort         3,000,000  Salazar/Allard
 Carson Gate 20), CO.
I-5 North Macadam Ramp & Street          500,000  Smith, G./Wyden
 Capacity Improvements, OR.
Illinois Trails, IL............        3,000,000  Durbin/Obama
Jefferson Park Avenue Project,           500,000  Warner/Webb
 Charlottesville, VA.
Newark Downtown Core                   1,000,000  Lautenberg/Menendez
 Redevelopment District, NJ.
Olympic Discovery Trail/Elwha            575,000  Murray
 River Pedestrian Bridge, WA.
Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage:         1,000,000  Bayh
 Phase I, Evansville, IN.
Reconstruction of Bangor                 500,000  Collins/Snowe
 Street, ME.
Robinson Grade Separation, City          500,000  Inhofe
 of Norman, OK.
Separated Grade Crossing for             500,000  Enzi/Thomas
 Torrington, WY.
Signal Synchronization System;           500,000  Vitter
 Baton Rouge, LA.
TH 14 from the city of Waseca            500,000  Coleman/Klobuchar
 to I-35 in Owatonna, MN.
US Highway 63 Reconstruction,            500,000  Grassley
 Waterloo, IA.
US 169 Highway Widening                  500,000  Inhofe
 Environmental Assessment, City
 of Owasso, OK.
US 17 in Beaufort County, NC...          500,000  Dole
US Highway 212 Expansion--             1,000,000  Klobuchar
 Chaska to Norwood Young
 America, Carver County, MN.
US-30, Columbus Viaduct, NE....          500,000  Hagel
US-30, McCammon to Topaz                 500,000  Crapo
 Bridge, ID.
White Pond Drive Expansion, OH.        1,000,000  Brown
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Trails.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 
the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] for various 
transportation enhancement projects throughout the State. The 
Committees expect IDOT to provide funds to the following 
projects: Aurora bike train, Urbana to Danville Trail, Cal-Sag 
Greenway Bike Trail, Harrisburg to Eldorado Bike Trail, Grand 
Illinois Trail, Village of Carbon Cliff, General Dacey Trail--
Phase 2, SIU--Edwardsville Morris Bike Trail, Great River Trail 
near Savanna, Village of Manteno Greenways Trail System and 
Springfield bike trail. Requested by Senators Durbin and Obama.
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 
[TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in 
the development of major infrastructure facilities through 
greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building 
on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees 
in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would 
be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA 
program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby 
lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project 
revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project 
operations.
    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 present 
value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a 
cash basis.
    Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is authorized for each of 
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, is available until expended, 
and is distributed among the 13 eligible States based on the 
latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.
    High Priority Projects.--Funds are provided for specific 
projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. Over 5,000 projects are 
identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 5 
years of SAFETEA-LU.
    Projects of National and Regional Significance.--This 
program provides funding for specific projects of national or 
regional importance listed in SAFETEA-LU.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007.................................... $36,032,343,903
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  38,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,955,051,359

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $40,955,051,359. The recommended level is $2,955,051,359 
more than the budget request and is necessary to pay 
outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant 
to this and prior appropriations acts.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                              (RESCISSION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

    The bill rescinds $2,890,000,000 of the unobligated 
balances of funds apportioned to the States under chapter 1 of 
title 23, United States Code, excluding safety programs and 
funds set aside within the State for population areas. The 
Committee directs the FHWA to administer the rescission by 
allowing each State the maximum flexibility in making 
adjustments among the apportioned highway programs.

                 APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $19,800,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System 
[ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240). The 
ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the 
Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise 
the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are 
intended to replace some of the most deficient and dangerous 
segments of rural roadway in America.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for corridor H in West 
Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS]. 
The recommended amount is $200,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 enacted level.

           DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Funding for the Delta Regional Transportation Development 
Program is authorized under section 1308 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59). The Delta Regional 
Transportation Development Program provides funds to support 
and encourage multi-state transportation planning and corridor 
development, provide for transportation project development, 
facilitate transportation decisionmaking and support 
transportation construction in the eight States comprising the 
Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Delta Regional 
Transportation Development Program. The Committee directs 
funding be allocated to the following projects that are listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
          Project name           recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canton Parkway, MS.............      $3,800,000  Cochran
Caruthersville Downtown                 500,000  Bond
 Infrastructure Road
 Redevelopment, Caruthersville,
  MO.
Greenville Street                     1,500,000  Cochran
 Revitalization, MS.
Highway 67 (Wappapello Bridge)        3,000,000  Bond
 Four-Lane Improvement Project,
 MO; Ozark Regional Foothills
 Planning Commission.
I-20 South Frontage Rd.,              1,500,000  Cochran
 Vicksburg, MS.
Marks Airport, MS..............       1,000,000  Cochran
Newburg Bridge Replacement, MO.         240,000  Bond
Route AB Route Extension, MO;           760,000  Bond
 Cape Girardeau County, MO.
Route AB/Nash Road Improvement        1,000,000  Bond
 Project, MO; Bootheel Regional
 Planning Commission.
Route D Road Improvement              2,500,000  Bond
 Project, MO; Bootheel Regional
 Planning Commission, MO.
Route EE Road/ Multi-Modal            1,000,000  Bond
 Improvement Project, MO;
 Bootheel Regional Planning
 Commission.
Route Y Safety Improvement            1,000,000  Bond
 Project, MO' Bootheel Regional
 Planning Commission.
Statesman Blvd. and Trail, MS..       2,200,000  Cochran
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-
aid highway programs.
    Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds 
received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 
Federal-aid highways account.
    Section 122 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for 
use on administrative expenses.
    Section 123 rescinds certain funds from the TIFIA program.
    Section 124 designates funds made available under this 
section for the projects and competitive initiatives specified 
as follows:
    The Committee recommends $135,775,955 for the Secretary to 
carry out the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on 
America's Transportation Network, including Urban Partnerships, 
Corridors of the Future, and other programs that support this 
initiative.
    The Committee notes that communities selected to become an 
Urban Partner with the Department of Transportation must commit 
themselves to a comprehensive plan that must include each of 
the following elements: congestion pricing, improved transit 
services, telecommuting and flexible work schedules, and the 
use of innovative technology. While the initial request for 
additional funding for the Urban Partnerships Agreements would 
have focused resources solely on congestion pricing activities, 
the Committee believes that strength of the Urban Partnerships 
lies in its comprehensive nature. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that funding made available under this section that the 
Secretary uses for Urban Partnerships, be made available for 
any of the partnership elements rather than focused on only one 
of those elements.
    The Committee recommends that funding made available under 
this section be made available to the following projects and 
activities:

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
            Project               recommendation       Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Parks Project in         $6,000,000  McConnell
 Louisville, KY.
500 South, I-15 to Redwood             1,000,000  Bennett/Hatch
 Road, UT.
87th Street Parkway                    1,000,000  Brownback
 Improvements, Lenexa, KS.
A-B Street Corridor Connector,         1,800,000  Murray
 WA.
American Parkway, PA...........        3,000,000  Specter/Casey
Baton Rouge Riverfront                 1,000,000  Landrieu
 Development and Levee
 Pedestrian and Bike Path,  LA.
Battleship New Jersey Access             630,000  Menendez/Lautenberg
 Road (Clinton Street) Repaving
 Project, NJ.
Big Pasco Industrial Center              900,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Intermodal Project, Phase 4,
 WA.
Blue Earth CSAH 12 Extension/TH        2,000,000  Klobuchar/Coleman
 14 Interchange, MN.
Bossier Parish Congestion              3,000,000  Landrieu/Vitter
 Relief Program, LA.
Brewery Grade/Highway 30               1,000,000  Wyden/Smith, G
 Intersection and Flour Mill
 Property Redevelopment, OR.
Bridge over Broadway, Missoula         1,000,000  Baucus/Tester
 to Rattlesnake National
 Recreation Area, MT.
Bridge Replacements, McKinley            500,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 County, NM.
Bristol Street Widening, Orange        1,000,000  Feinstein
 County, CA.
Caraway Bridge Overpass, AR....        2,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
CEMAR Trail, IA................          500,000  Harkin
Chittenden County Road                 2,500,000  Leahy
 Improvement Projects in
 Colchester (VT Route 15/Campus
 Road), Essex Junction (VT
 Route 15), and Milton (US
 Route 7), VT.
City of Granite Falls Freight          1,500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Access Project, WA.
City of Riverside Grade                1,000,000  Boxer/Feinstein
 Separations, CA.
City of Rocks Back Country             2,000,000  Craig/Crapo
 Byway, ID.
City of Tuscaloosa Downtown            6,000,000  Shelby
 Revitalization Project, AL--
 Twenty First Avenue Phase I
 and University Boulevard Phase
 III, AL.
Clinton Street Bridge                  1,000,000  Bayh/Lugar
 Replacement, City of Fort
 Wayne, IN.
Coal Creek Parkway Corridor            1,000,000  Murray
 Completion Project, WA.
Coalfields Expressway, WV......        5,000,000  Byrd
Cold Storage Spur Line, IA.....        1,000,000  Harkin
College of Southern Idaho                800,000  Craig/Crapo
 Student Safety Initiative, ID.
DelTrac Integrated                     1,200,000  Biden/Carper
 Transportation Management
 System, DE.
Denali Commission, Alaska for         10,000,000  Stevens
 transportation infrastructure
 projects throughout rural
 Alaska.
Design, engineering,                   1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 environmental assessment and
 initial construction of East
 Aztec Arterial Route, NM.
Dillerville Rail Yard                  1,500,000  Specter/Casey
 Relocation, PA.
East Brandon Bypass, MS........        1,000,000  Lott
East Carson Street Widening, PA        1,500,000  Specter/Casey
East Loop, TX..................          600,000  Hutchison
East Metropolitan Corridor, MS.        3,300,000  Cochran/Lott
East Texas Higher Speed Rail             650,000  Hutchison
 Feasibility Study, TX.
FM509 Extension, TX............        1,000,000  Hutchison/Cornyn
Friant Road Widening, Fresno           1,000,000  Feinstein
 County, CA.
Grand Avenue Underpass,                2,000,000  Obama
 Chicago, IL.
Granite Street Reconstruction          1,500,000  Gregg
 Project, NH.
Grant City Downtown Square               500,000  Bond
 Street Improvements, MO.
Gwynns Falls Trail/CSX Bridge,           500,000  Cardin
 MD.
Hanford Reach National Monument        1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Transportation Improvements,
 WA.
Heart of America Bicycle/                750,000  Bond
 Pedestrian Bridge, MO.
Henderson Lake Mead Parkway, NV          200,000  Reid
High Priority Corridor 31 of           1,000,000  Casey
 the National Highway System in
 southwestern,  PA.
Highway 13 at Broadmoor                  500,000  Bond
 Intersection in Springfield,
 MO.
Highway 13 Bypass, MO..........        3,000,000  Bond
Highway 9 4-Lane Corridor, MS..        3,000,000  Cochran
Hobbs East Bypass Project, NM..        1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
I 15/I 215 North to Apex               1,300,000  Reid/Ensign
 Interchange, NV.
I-15 Auxiliary Lanes, Kaysville        2,000,000  Bennett/Hatch
 to 31st Street, UT.
I-25 and State Highway 16              2,000,000  Allard/Salazar
 Interchange--Fort Carson, CO.
I-355 Corridor Improvement               500,000  Durbin
 Project, IL.
I-55/Gluckstadt Interchange            2,000,000  Lott/Cochran
 Improvements, MS.
I-69, LA.......................        4,000,000  Landrieu/Vitter
I-69, US-77 Upgrades from                750,000  Hutchison
 Harlingen to I-37, TX.
I-70 Viaduct Realignment,                500,000  Brownback
 Topeka, KS.
I-81 Rebuild/Expansion, PA.....        2,000,000  Specter/Casey
I-84, Exit 29 (Franklin Road)            800,000  Craig/Crapo
 Local Systems Improvement, ID.
I-95/Fairfax County Parkway            3,000,000  Webb
 Interchange at Newington Road,
 VA.
Icicle Station Project,                  300,000  Murray
 Leavenworth, WA.
Improvements to Route 266 and          3,000,000  Bond
 Interchange with Interstate
 44, MO.
Interchange Construction at US-        1,000,000  Brownback
 73 and 20th Street,
 Leavenworth, KS.
Intersection Rehabilitation and        1,000,000  Brownback/Roberts
 Improvements, US24 and Marlatt
 Avenue, Manhattan, KS.
Interstate 10 Service Road             2,000,000  Landrieu/Vitter
 Corridor, Lake Charles, LA.
Interstate 430/630: Interchange        4,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 Modification, AR.
Interstate 68 Access Road--            2,300,000  Byrd
 Monongalia County, WV.
Interstate 69, TN..............        3,000,000  Alexander
Joe Dice Suspension Bridge, MO.          750,000  Bond
Kalispell Bypass, MT...........        6,000,000  Tester/Baucus
King Coal Highway, WV..........        5,000,000  Byrd
Las Cruces Downtown                    2,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Revitalization, NM.
Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail,            800,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 ND.
Lewiston Partnership Project,            400,000  Craig/Crapo
 ID.
Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation        1,500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Project, WA.
Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding           2,500,000  Gregg
 Turnpike, NH.
Mahan Drive Phase II, Leon             1,000,000  Nelson, Bill
 County, FL.
Martin Bluff Road, MS..........        2,000,000  Lott
Mountain Edge Parkway                  1,000,000  Reid
 Environmental Assessment, Las
 Vegas, NV.
New Alignment South Bridge, MO.        1,500,000  Bond
North Main Street Streetscape            350,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Enhancements, CT.
Northside Drive, Clinton, MS...        4,000,000  Cochran
Northwest Arkansas Western             1,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 Beltway, AR.
Northwest Loop Access Road,            1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Sandoval County, NM.
Paducah Waterfront Development         4,000,000  McConnell
 Project, KY.
Palm Bay Parkway Project, FL...        3,000,000  Nelson, Bill
Paseo Street Corridor                    750,000  Bond
 Improvements, MO.
Paw Paw Bends Trail, Morgan            1,000,000  Byrd
 County, WV.
Pedestrian Plaza improvements          1,000,000  Lieberman/Dodd
 at the Connecticut Science
 Center in Hartford, CT.
Pinnacle Aeropark, Wayne               1,000,000  Stabenow/Levin
 County, MI.
Pinon Hills Boulevard East and         1,500,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Animas River Bridge, NM.
Port Huron, NAFTA Corridor             1,000,000  Stabenow/Levin
 Congestion Mitigation Project,
 Phase I, MI.
Port of Wilmington Rail                1,500,000  Carper/Biden
 Improvement Project, DE.
Post Street Centennial Trail           2,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 and Utility Bridge, WA.
Reading Lighting & Streetscape           250,000  Casey
 Enhancement Initiative, PA.
Realignment of Saddle Creek            2,000,000  Nelson, Ben/Hagel
 Road, NE.
Reconstruction of Two                  1,000,000  Brownback
 Interchanges on I-235,
 Wichita, KS.
Reconstruction of US-50 in Reno        1,500,000  Brownback
 County, KS.
Reconstruction of US50, Gray             500,000  Brownback
 County, KS.
Redevelopment of Front Street          2,000,000  Lieberman
 and Constitution Way in
 Hartford, CT.
Reno Rail Access Corridor                500,000  Reid/Ensign
 Enhancements, NV.
Renovation of Monument Circle,           500,000  Bayh/Lugar
 Indianapolis, IN.
Revitalization and                     1,000,000  Schumer/Clinton
 redevelopment of the Hamlet of
 Brewerton, NY.
River Tech Boulevard Road              1,500,000  Durbin/Obama
 Construction, Moline, IL.
San Juan County Road 3900, NM..        1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
San Juan County Road CR 7500,            500,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 NM.
SD 11 and SD 42 in Sioux Falls,        3,000,000  Johnson
 SD.
Shiloh Road Corridor, Billings,        7,000,000  Baucus/Tester
 MT.
South Dakota School of Mines             500,000  Johnson/Thune
 and Technology connector road,
 SD.
South Lake Union Streetcar             1,150,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Project Capital Improvements,
 WA.
Southeast Connector Extension          3,500,000  Harkin/Grassley
 from SE 6th Street to SE 14th
 Street, IA.
Southwest Rochelle Truck Loop,           150,000  Obama
 Ogle County, IL.
SR304/Bremerton Transportation           250,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Center, WA.
Star Landing Road Corridor,            2,400,000  Cochran/Lott
 DeSoto County, MS.
State Route 437 By-Pass in             1,000,000  Alexander
 Bedford County, TN.
Tacoma Rail Mountain Division          1,100,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Track Improvements, WA.
U.S. 2 Safety Improvements, WA.          500,000  Murray/Cantwell
U.S. 287 at Lamar, Colorado:           2,000,000  Salazar/Allard
 Ports-to-Plains, CO.
U.S. 54 Corridor Expansion, MO.        1,000,000  Bond
U.S. 60 Corridor Improvements,           750,000  Bond
 MO.
U.S. 63 and Gans Road Overpass,        1,000,000  Bond
 MO.
U.S. Highway 49/Highway 7              3,320,000  Cochran
 Connector, MS.
U.S. Route 30/Harrisburg Pike          2,000,000  Specter
 Gateway Interchange Project,
 PA.
Uptown St. Joseph                      2,000,000  Bond
 Transportation District, MO.
Urban Collector Road, Jackson          2,400,000  Cochran
 and Harrison Counties, MS.
US 11 Corridor Improvements,           3,000,000  Landrieu/Vitter
 St. Tammany Parish, LA.
US 54 Greensburg, KS...........          500,000  Brownback
US Route 1/SR 123 Interchange          3,000,000  Webb
 Improvements, Prince William
 County, VA.
Valley View Business Park              1,000,000  Casey
 Access Road, PA.
Vermont Downtown Streetscape &         1,000,000  Leahy
 Sidewalk Improvements in
 Springfield, Derby Line,
 Bristol, Stamford, Franklin,
 VT.
Village Plaza Streets and                200,000  Domenici
 Drainage, Village of Angel
 Fire, NM.
Wadsworth Interchange/State            1,000,000  Allard/Salazar
 Highway 128, CO.
West Lea Street Improvements,            300,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Carlsbad, NM.
West Vancouver Freight Access          2,000,000  Murray / Cantwell
 Project, WA.
West Viginia Route 2                   9,500,000  Byrd
 Improvements, WV.
West Virginia Route 9, WV......       10,000,000  Byrd
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 125 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy 
American requirements.
    Section 126 permits funds made available in a prior 
appropriations act for the construction of the North Shore Road 
in North Carolina to be available for an alternate purpose. 
Requested by Senator Alexander.

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 
established within the Department of Transportation by the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-
159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier 
safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    FMCSA's mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 
operation, and reduce truck and bus crashes. The agency also is 
charged with reducing fatalities associated with commercial 
motor vehicles through education, regulation, enforcement, 
research and innovative technology, thereby achieving a safer 
and more secure transportation environment. Additionally, FMCSA 
is responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles 
entering the United States along its southern and northern 
borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and 
hazardous materials regulations.
    Agency resources and activities are expected to contribute 
to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, 
including the use of stronger enforcement measures against 
safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology 
innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and 
improvements to commercial driver's license testing, 
recordkeeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, 
FMCSA is expected to work closely with Federal, State, and 
local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway 
safety organizations, and individual citizens.
    MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU] 
provides funding authorizations for FMCSA's Motor Carrier 
Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. 
Under these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA's expanded 
scope as authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new 
and enhanced security measures.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a level of $531,469,553 for the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This level is 
$3,469,553 more than the level requested by the President and 
$10,967,553 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. It is 
also $3,469,553 more than the level authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee is greatly concerned with the growing number 
of fatalities on our Nation's highways. In April of this year, 
the Committee took testimony from the FMCSA Administrator on 
rising highway fatalities. The hearing was designed to assess 
the role of the Nation's leading highway safety agencies in 
addressing and reversing the growing number of highway 
fatalities. While there was a slight decrease in large truck 
fatalities in 2005 after several years of increases, FMCSA has 
been unable for the last several years to achieve the dramatic 
decreases necessary to meet the large truck fatality targets 
articulated in the agency's performance goals.
    The agency has acknowledged that it is struggling to 
achieve results. The agency's budget documents for fiscal year 
2008 concede that the most recent data available indicate that 
``FMCSA may have reached a maximum outcome potential with the 
current program activities and procedures that are in place.'' 
The agency says that it is looking for ways to achieve better 
outcomes, and is undertaking an overhaul of its compliance and 
enforcement programs as part of its Comprehensive Safety 
Analysis [CSA] 2010 initiative. While supportive of this 
initiative, the Committee does not believe that the American 
people have to wait until 2010 to see real improvements in 
motor carrier safety. Rather, FMCSA should be aggressively 
addressing the challenges that undermine its ability to meet 
its stated fatality reduction goals in the near term.
    Fatality Rate Calculation.--The Committee was disappointed 
to learn that the Department has abandoned its goal of 
achieving one fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
[VMT] in fiscal year 2008, delaying the goal instead until 
fiscal year 2011. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that, in 
weakening its goals, the Department is also changing how large 
truck fatality rates are calculated. In changing its 
methodology, FMCSA may be making it difficult to determine 
whether the agency is making real progress toward its now-
delayed fatality goal. As such, the Committee directs FMCSA to 
continue to calculate fatality rates using truck miles traveled 
in addition to the other measures the agency may choose so that 
the Committee can evaluate accurately whether the agency is 
making real progress toward its goal for 2011.
    New Performance Measures.--While measuring FMCSA's ability 
to save lives is an important performance indicator, the 
Committee also believes that this measure alone does not allow 
the Congress or the agency to measure the effectiveness of 
FMCSA's programs in improving compliance with motor carrier 
safety regulations. 


    The charts above display the results of inspections 
conducted by Federal and State officials in 2006. The data show 
that over seventy percent of drivers and vehicles inspected 
have at least one violation. Even more troubling is that 22 
percent, or more than 1 out of every 5, drivers or vehicles 
inspected were in such deficient condition that they were 
immediately ordered off the road.
    In testimony before the Committee, the Administrator agreed 
that this high out-of-service rate was unacceptable. However, 
he also noted that these inspections are targeting the riskiest 
vehicles and drivers. The Committee applauds the 
Administrator's to use a data-driven system to most effectively 
target its efforts and resources on the riskiest carriers. But 
the Committee also expects that the Administrator will use his 
inspection and enforcement data as a tool to evaluate his 
success or failure in improving overall industry compliance 
with the agency's safety regulations. Toward that end, the 
Committee requests FMCSA submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations 180 days after the enactment of 
this act a plan for the establishment and implementation of 
quantifiable measures of agency effectiveness that incorporate 
the agency's enforcement and inspection data. This plan should 
set performance targets within reasonable timeframes for 
improved compliance and explain with specificity how the 
agency's programs will bring about those improvements. FMCSA is 
then asked to display its progress toward these stated goals as 
part of its annual budget submissions to the Committee.

              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2007........................................    $223,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008 (limitation)......................     228,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     231,469,553

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides the necessary resources to support 
motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the 
agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports 
nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement 
efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the 
U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering the 
United States are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor 
carrier regulatory development and implementation, information 
management, research and technology, safety education and 
outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone 
hotline.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$231,469,553 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The 
recommendation is $8,469,553 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level and $3,469,553 more than the budget request. This 
level is also $3,469,553 more than the authorized limitation. 
The Committee is providing FMCSA additional obligation 
authority to allow the agency to use unobligated balances in 
this account provided in previous years.
    The bill specifies that $7,550,000 for the research and 
technology program is available for obligation until September 
30, 2010.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $174,628,553 for operating 
expenses. This level is $1,969,553 more than the President's 
request and $23,521,553 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level. The President's budget requested over $7,000,000, which 
the Committee has provided, to pay for personnel compensation 
and benefits necessary to make adjustments in grade structure 
that had been improperly calculated in prior years. In 
addition, the Committee has provided an additional $1,969,553 
that is to be used only to pay for the annualization of the 22 
positions included in the fiscal year 2007 budget in order to 
support SAFETEA-LU initiatives and for additional enforcement 
personnel.
    Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010.--The President's 
budget for fiscal year 2008 includes a request of $5,600,000 
for CSA 2010, the agency's initiative to overhaul and improve 
its oversight and enforcement programs. This funding is 
intended to continue FMCSA's efforts to develop new systems and 
software, rulemakings and policies, and training. The agency 
also proposes to continue to engage the major industry 
stakeholders in the process by conducting public listening 
sessions leading up to an operational test of the CSA 2010 
model in four States.
    FMCSA has told the Committee and the National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] that this initiative should 
satisfy NTSB's longstanding recommendation that FMCSA improve 
the safety of motor carrier operations by altering the safety 
fitness rating system in order to prevent unsafe drivers and 
vehicles from continuing to operate. This recommendation has 
been on NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' list since 2000, and is 
classified by NTSB as having an ``open-unacceptable response'' 
status. The Committee is concerned that FMCSA has had this 
recommendation for 7 years and has yet to take appropriate 
actions to address program deficiencies and satisfy the NTSB 
recommendation. This underscores the need to move with urgency 
to implement the necessary changes to improve FMCSA's programs.
    For this reason, the Committee is concerned that the agency 
is not yet taking all the appropriate and expeditious steps 
necessary to ensure all the safety benefits promised by CSA 
2010. For example, implementation of CSA 2010 will require the 
agency to conduct several rulemakings. Yet the agency is still 
developing regulatory text and no new rules to launch this 
initiative have been proposed. Given that the DOT IG has found 
that it takes FMCSA an average of 2.3 years to complete major 
rulemakings, the Committee is concerned with FMCSA's ability to 
successfully implement this critical initiative by 2010. 
Moreover, the Committee believes that the agency should be 
implementing changes on an ongoing basis in order to make 
incremental safety improvements prior to 2010. Up to this 
point, the agency has offered limited information about when 
and how these safety benefits will be realized.
    The Committee has included all the funding requested in 
order to move the initiative forward. However, the Committee 
wants to ensure that the funding will achieve real benefits in 
motor carrier safety in the near term. Therefore, FMCSA is 
directed to submit a comprehensive plan to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations for the implementation of the CSA 
2010 initiative 90 days after the enactment of this act. This 
plan must include milestones and dates for completion of 
critical tasks, which will allow the Committee to evaluate 
FMCSA's progress toward full implementation of this initiative 
by 2010. In addition, the plan should detail what benefits will 
result from the funding provided in fiscal year 2008. Following 
the submission of the plan, FMCSA is directed to update the 
Committees every 6 months on the implementation of CSA 2010. 
These updates should include detailed information on policy 
changes being implemented or planned to improve the operations 
of FMCSA, both in the near and long term; the ability of the 
agency to meet its milestones on time; and how the agency is 
implementing policy changes in the field. Furthermore, the 
Committee directs GAO to monitor FMCSA's progress in carrying 
out the implementation plan, and to brief the Committee 
regularly on its findings.
    Compliance Review Process.--The Compliance Review [CR] is a 
critical enforcement tool that FMCSA uses to rate and evaluate 
the adequacy of the operations and safety of the Nation's motor 
carriers. During a hearing this year, the Committee examined a 
fatal accident that revealed some serious flaws with the 
compliance review process. The accident, which occurred on the 
Capital Beltway (I-495/I-95), involved a trucker who had 
accumulated traffic citations in seven States, and was driving 
on a suspended license at the time of the accident. The driver 
was in the employ of ``BK Trucking'', a registered motor 
carrier which had undergone a full scale compliance review by 
FMCSA a little more than 3 weeks prior to the accident. This 
review found a few problems with log books but otherwise found 
no violations that the agency described as ``critical'' or 
``acute.'' Immediately following the fatality, however, another 
compliance review was conducted on the same firm. That review 
found multiple violations and resulted in fines totaling 
$77,000.
    The Committee is deeply troubled that, despite the fact 
that this motor carrier was identified by FMCSA as being ``high 
risk,'' the carrier was able to verbally explain away 
discrepancies discovered by FMCSA's investigator as part of the 
first compliance review. During the Committee's hearing, the 
Administrator shared this concern and pledged to address the 
issues that were raised by this tragic incident. The Committee 
therefore directs FMCSA to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations 30 days after the reporting of 
this bill on the results of the agency's internal review of 
this incident. Moreover, the Committee also directs FMCSA to 
report on how these issues are being addressed as it relates to 
the compliance review process, as well as the training and 
diligence of its investigators.
    High Risk Carriers.--The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 
[SAFETEA-LU], signed by the President in 2005, included a 
requirement that compliance reviews [CR] be completed on motor 
carriers that are determined to pose the highest safety risk 
based on FMCSA data. Specifically, it was required that reviews 
be conducted on motor carriers rated as category ``A'' or ``B'' 
or the highest priority carriers to inspect based on safety 
data, for 2 consecutive months. The Committee is concerned that 
FMCSA has not been able to meet this requirement.
    While part of the problem may be insufficient inspection 
resources, it is equally clear that part of the problem is 
insufficient training in the field regarding the necessity of 
prioritizing these high-risk motor carriers.
    In order to address the agency's inability to satisfy its 
obligation, FMCSA issued a new policy in April 2007 to clarify 
how field staff should effectively prioritize the riskiest 
carriers for compliance reviews. The Committee hopes that this 
new policy will result in an improved ability to meet this 
critical safety requirement. In addition, the Committee has 
provided additional resources for FMCSA's operations budget and 
directs that of this amount, $1,000,000 be used by FMCSA to 
ensure that the agency is conducting compliance reviews on high 
risk carriers as required by law. Furthermore, the agency is 
directed to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations quarterly updates on its ability to meet this 
requirement.
    Repeat Violators.--A system that seeks to attack the 
highest risk carriers must inevitably focus on those that 
continually flout safety violations--repeat offenders. The 
Committee was therefore concerned by a report by the Department 
of Transportation [DOT] Inspector General [IG], which found 
that FMCSA did not consistently use its authority to implement 
sanctions against repeat violators. FMCSA has committed to the 
DOT IG that it will strengthen its policies to ensure that 
repeat offenders are subject to the maximum fines. The 
Committee directs the DOT IG to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations on the success of FMCSA's policies 
in satisfying this recommendation, as well as how these 
policies are being implemented in the field.
    ADA Compliance of Curbside Motor Coach Operators.--The 
Committee is greatly dismayed by the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration's continuing failure to exercise the 
Department's authority to deny operating authority to 
interstate bus companies that are unwilling or unable to comply 
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. DOT's 
regulations under 49 CFR Part 37, Subpart H requires 
accessibility to over-the-road buses for people with 
disabilities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 
rejected FMCSA's assertion that it did not have the authority 
to deny bus operators registration on these grounds and 
remanded the case to FMCSA for further interpretation of the 
statutory language. In the many months that have passed since 
that decision, no action has been taken by FMCSA. The Committee 
expects FMCSA to take immediate action to implement the Court's 
decision without further delay. That action should ensure that 
discrimination against people with disabilities precludes bus 
operators from registering as interstate motor carriers to the 
same extent to which other forms of discrimination and serious 
safety violations preclude such registration. The Committee 
further directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide a 
letter report to the Committee no later than 30 days following 
the reporting of this bill to explain how she and her Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administrator have implemented the Circuit 
Court decision and the Committee's directive.

                            PROGRAM EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $56,841,000 for FMCSA's program 
expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                           2007  enacted      2008  estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Technology..................................        $10,296,000         $7,550,000         $7,550,000
Information Management.................................         43,175,000         33,329,000         34,329,000
Regulatory Development.................................         12,455,000          9,462,000          9,962,000
Outreach and Education.................................          4,000,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
CMV Operations Grants..................................          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory and Standards Development.--The Committee has 
provided $9,962,000 for regulatory and standards development, 
which is $2,493,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level and $500,000 more than the President's request. The 
Committee notes that the agency has a backlog of over 40 
pending regulatory actions. Given the importance of these 
regulations, the Committee was troubled by the decrease in 
funding for this program. Therefore the Committee has provided 
additional funding to be used to support regulatory 
development. Within this allocation, the Committee has denied 
funding for the new activity of ``organizational assessment'', 
as it appears to be duplicative of the CSA 2010 initiative. 
While it is important to assess and improve organizational 
effectiveness, the Committee believes that given the agency's 
tight budget, this funding is better spent in support of the 
program's other activities, such as medical oversight 
improvement.
    Information Management.--FMCSA is approaching its 
enforcement mission using a data-driven approach to identify 
and target the riskiest motor carriers. While the agency has 
made improvements in its data quality, the DOT IG has argued 
that FMCSA must make additional improvements in data quality in 
order to properly rank and target motor carriers for reviews 
and inspection. Therefore, the Committee is concerned by the 
large funding reduction proposed in the budget for the 
Information Management program for fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for information 
management and directs FMCSA to use this funding exclusively to 
improve data quality and data access capabilities.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..............       $294,000,000       $294,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.............        300,000,000        300,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        300,000,000        300,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides the necessary resources for Federal 
grants to support State compliance, enforcement, and other 
programs. Grants are also provided to States for enforcement 
efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure 
that all points of entry into the United States are fortified 
with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State 
commercial driver's license [CDL] oversight activities to 
prevent unqualified drivers from being issued CDLs; and the 
Performance Registration Information Systems and Management 
[PRISM] program, which links State motor vehicle registration 
systems with carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe 
commercial motor carriers.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

    The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract 
authorization of $300,000,000 for the payment of obligations 
incurred in carrying out motor carrier safety grant programs. 
The Committee recommendation is consistent with the budget 
estimate and the contract authorization for this program under 
SAFETEA-LU.

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$300,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 
limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and the 
amount authorized under SAFETEA-LU. The Committee 
recommendation is $14,820,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The Committee recommends a separate limitation 
for each grant program funded under this account with the 
following funding allocations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......       $202,000,000
Commercial driver's license and driver improvement            25,000,000
 program.............................................
Border enforcement grants............................         32,000,000
Performance and registration information system                5,000,000
 management [PRISM] grants...........................
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks           25,000,000
 [CVISN] grants......................................
Safety Data Improvement..............................          3,000,000
CDLIS................................................          8,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRISM.--The performance and registration information system 
management [PRISM] grants program seeks to ensure that unsafe 
motor carriers cannot resume interstate operations after being 
ordered by FMCSA to cease operations. The Committee believes 
that this program can be an integral part of improving the 
safety of motor carriers operating on our Nation's highways. 
However, the Committee is concerned that, despite the fact that 
FMCSA anticipates that nearly all of the States will have PRISM 
grant agreements in fiscal year 2008, FMCSA's stated goal is 
that only 30 States will actually use the tool to suspend, 
revoke, or deny license plates based on FMCSA prohibition on 
interstate operations. The Committee is concerned as to why 
this tool will not be used more fully and seeks a better 
understanding of the issues surrounding full implementation of 
this program. Therefore, the Committee directs GAO to evaluate 
the extent to which the program has enhanced the ability of 
both the States and FMCSA to identify unsafe motor carriers and 
take effective enforcement action; what opportunities exist to 
fully implement the program nationally; and what oversight 
FMCSA is providing to ensure that the program's purpose is 
being achieved.
    Oversight of MCSAP.--The FMCSA relies on its State and 
local partners to assist the agency in the enforcement of motor 
carrier regulations. FMCSA anticipates that in fiscal year 
2008, there will be approximately 2 million driver and vehicle 
inspections; 3,700 compliance reviews; and 26,500 new entrant 
audits conducted by the States. FMCSA supports the efforts by 
providing grant money to the States. In order to receive this 
funding, each State must demonstrate that it has adequate motor 
carrier regulations and must submit a Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Plan [CVSP], which is reviewed and approved by FMCSA. The 
Committee notes that a GAO report issued in December 2005 
questioned whether FMCSA was providing an adequate level of 
oversight to the MCSAP program. The Committee understands that 
FMCSA is responding to GAO's recommendations. The Committee 
wants to ensure that this funding is being used to effectively 
reduce highway fatalities and improve the safety of our 
Nation's highways, and looks forward to the GAO's follow up 
report on this topic.
    The bill also rescinds $11,260,000 in unobligated balances 
from amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

                          MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

    The bill rescinds $32,187,720 in unobligated balances from 
amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

                 NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

    The bill rescinds $5,212,858 in unobligated balances from 
amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all 
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] 
is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety 
behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and 
automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's 
regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in 
September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of 
title 49, United States Code) and the Highway Safety Act of 
1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code). 
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths 
and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor 
vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 
equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety 
research and development; and expand the National Driver 
Register. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the 
Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a 
coordinated national highway safety program through financial 
assistance to the States.
    In October 1966, these activities, originally under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to 
the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the 
National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established 
as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It 
succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously 
had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an 
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
    NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the 
enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act 
(now codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of 
title 49, United States Code). This act as originally enacted, 
instructs the Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper 
standards, consumer information activities, and odometer 
regulations. Three major amendments to this act have been 
enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment directs the Secretary to 
set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards; 
(2) an October 1984 amendment directs the Secretary to require 
certain passenger motor vehicles and their major replacement 
parts to be marked with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3) 
an October 1992 amendment directs the Secretary to set and 
administer automobile content labeling requirements.
    NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws: 
(1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 
301 of title 49, United States Code); (2) the Highway Safety 
Act (chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code); (3) the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of 
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code); (4) the National 
Driver Register Act of 1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
Users [SAFETEA-LU].
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides 
for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for 
vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting 
research, including the acquisition of required testing 
facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register, 
which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of 
1982.
    The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national 
highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States 
Code) to be carried out by the States and for highway safety 
research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403 
of title 23, United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving 
prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States 
Code) to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk 
driving prevention programs.
    SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either 
reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 
NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $835,406,000 for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This funding is 
$2,406,000 more than the President's request and $14,674,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                           Program                             2007 enacted\1\                    recommendation
                                                                                 2008 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................................     $228,982,430     $229,750,000     $232,156,000
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      835,406,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2006, the latest data from the Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System [FARS] was released by NHTSA. The data showed 
that in 2005 highway fatalities numbered 43,443. This 
represents the highest number of fatalities since 1990. Even 
more disconcerting than the raw number of fatalities was the 
fact that, for the first time in 10 years, the rate of 
fatalities as measured against 100 million vehicles miles 
traveled [VMT] also increased. This should be viewed as a 
setback for the Department and for NHTSA.
    Despite these dire numbers, the President's budget for 
fiscal year 2008 offered no bold or innovative proposals to 
improve highway safety. Instead, the administration weakened 
its stated goal of achieving 1 fatality per 100 million VMT in 
2008, and delayed it until 2011. While the Secretary has 
maintained the administration's commitment to achieving this 
goal, this must be demonstrated with clearly articulated 
strategies that will enable the Department to meet this 
fatality goal in 2011.
    The chart below displays the targets and outcomes for 
fatalities per million VMT. Given the trends displayed and the 
aggressive goal for 1 fatality per 100 million VMT, the 
Committee is concerned that, absent new tools and approaches, 
the Department and the agency will once again fail to achieve 
this important goal in 2011. 


    In testimony before the Committee, the Secretary pledged to 
personally go back and redouble efforts in order to work on 
these safety issues. It is critically important that this 
pledge is supported by demonstrated actions. NHTSA's role in 
improving highway safety is crucial and the Committee expects 
the agency to provide the necessary leadership in developing 
new strategies that address the challenges in reducing the 
highway fatalities.
    As such, the Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to 
the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 180 days after 
the enactment of this act on how it is redoubling its efforts, 
and how its programs will enable the Department to achieve the 
goal of 1 fatality per 100 million VMT in 2011. This report 
should address both the behavioral and vehicle safety programs 
of the agency. Moreover, the report should demonstrate how the 
agency is acting expeditiously, and not merely repeat 
activities currently being undertaken. The Committee wants to 
see how the agency's programs are going to result in reductions 
in the number of fatalities both in the near and long term. The 
Committee is especially interested in the agency's work in the 
areas where FARS data indicate the agency is struggling to make 
gains, such as motorcycle and alcohol-related fatalities.
    Highway fatalities account for over 90 percent of all 
transportation-related fatalities and it remains the leading 
cause of death and disability for Americans age 3 through 33. 
The States have an important role to play in successfully 
reducing the number of highway fatalities, but NHTSA must be a 
leader in this effort. The agency must move with a sense of 
urgency and renewed commitment to finding innovative 
solutions--both through its behavioral and vehicle safety 
programs--to reverse this tragic trend of rising highway 
fatalities.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $228,982,430
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     229,750,000
Committee recommendation................................     232,156,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    These programs support traffic safety programs and related 
research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national 
leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and 
local government, the private sector, universities, research 
units, and various safety associations and organizations. These 
highway safety programs emphasize alcohol and drug 
countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 
enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 
records and licensing, State and community traffic safety 
evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, 
pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and 
older driver safety programs, and development of improved 
accident investigation procedures.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $232,156,000 for Operations and 
Research. This level is $3,174,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 enacted level and $2,406,000 more than the budget request. 
The funding provided supports the behavioral and vehicle safety 
programs of NHTSA, $124,406,000 is derived from the General 
Fund and $107,750,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, 
as authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the 
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Performance......................................     $13,518,000
Enforcement.............................................      18,277,000
Highway Safety Programs.................................      43,715,000
Research and Analysis...................................      66,178,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      90,468,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $90,468,000 for administrative and 
related operating expenses associated with carrying out the 
agency's Behavioral Research program as authorized by section 
403 of title 23, U.S.C. and with Vehicle Research program as 
authorized by chapter 301 of title 49, and part C of subtitle 
VI of title 49, U.S.C.
    Budget Documentation.--The Committee has directed NHTSA to 
submit a report on the agency's plans for helping the 
Department achieve the goal of 1 fatality per 100 million VMT 
by 2011, including new initiatives and proposals that will 
enable the agency to meet that goal. NHTSA should integrate 
detailed plans set out in this report into its fiscal year 2009 
performance budget.

                           SAFETY PERFORMANCE

    New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].--NCAP is a tool used by 
NHTSA to inform consumers about the comparative safety of cars, 
and has encouraged manufacturers to make safer cars. While the 
program is critical to improving the safety of vehicles, the 
Government Accountability Office observed in a report to the 
Committee in 2005 that the program needs to change to maintain 
its relevance. The Committee was therefore pleased by the 
Secretary's announcement in January that the agency plans to 
improve vehicle crash tests and the five star rating program in 
order to evolve with the times and technology. The Committee 
expects that NHTSA will include detailed information on the 
modifications the agency is planning to NCAP, how these changes 
will improve the program, and the timeline for implementation 
of these changes as part of the agency's 2009 performance 
budget.
    Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.--The TREAD Act included a 
requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue a rule 
mandating that new motor vehicles have a warning system to 
alert operators when a tire is significantly under-inflated. In 
April 2005, NHTSA fulfilled the requirement of the TREAD Act by 
publishing a final rule that requires Tire Pressure Monitoring 
Systems [TPMS] to be installed in every new vehicle by model 
year 2006. NHTSA notes the potential of TPMS in preventing 
injury, saving lives and improving fuel economy. However, the 
Committee is concerned that these impacts may be undermined if 
consumers do not fully understand the technology. Therefore, 
the Committee provides NHTSA with $750,000 and directs NHTSA to 
carry out a consumer education campaign that would assist 
drivers in understanding new TPMS technologies, their purpose, 
and the valuable safety information that they provide. 
Requested by Senators Levin and Stabenow.
    LATCH.--In order to standardize the way that child 
restraints are attached to vehicles without using seat belts, 
NHTSA promulgated a rule that became effective in September 
2002. As a result, the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children 
[LATCH] installation system was created and has been in the 
marketplace since the regulation was issued. However, a recent 
report by NHTSA demonstrated that the current technology is 
confusing for parents. The Committee understands that NHTSA is 
taking measures to address this issue both by examining vehicle 
standards and through a public education campaign. The 
Committee applauds the agency's effort to move to address this 
important safety issue. The Committee further requests that the 
agency include information on the activities and actions 
planned to address the problems with the LATCH system in the 
agency's fiscal year 2009 budget.

                            SAFETY ASSURANCE

    The Committee includes $18,277,000 for NHTSA's enforcement 
activities consistent with the budget request. This funding 
supports the agency's efforts to ensure the safety of vehicles 
on our roads by enforcing compliance with safety standards and 
investigating safety-related defects in motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment. This program also supports the 
enforcement of Federal odometer laws and encourages the 
enforcement of State odometer laws.

                         HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the 
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving........................................     $11,400,000
Drug Impaired Driving...................................       1,488,000
Pedestrians/Bicycle/Pupil Transportation................       1,665,000
Older Driver Safety.....................................       1,700,000
Motorcycle Safety.......................................         992,000
National Occupant Protection............................      11,132,000
Enforcement and Justice Services........................       2,699,000
Emergency Medical Services..............................       2,320,000
Enhance 9-1-1 Act Implementation and NEMSIS.............       2,250,000
Driver Licensing........................................       1,002,000
Highway Safety Research\1\..............................      11,346,000
Emerging Traffic Safety Issues..........................         588,000
International Programs..................................         100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount includes $4,967,000 from the Highway Traffic Grants
  Administrative Expenses

    Seat Belt Usage.--Seat belts have proven to be one of the 
most effective tools in reducing highway fatalities. NHTSA 
estimates that seat belts saved 15,632 lives in 2005 and that 
an additional 5,328 lives could have been saved if motor 
vehicle occupants had been wearing seat belts. Strong seat belt 
laws coupled with strong enforcement has proven effective in 
improving seat belt usage and saving lives. However, today only 
26 States and the District of Columbia have primary seat belt 
laws. The enactment of primary seat belt laws has been on the 
National Transportation Safety Board's ``Most Wanted'' list for 
States since 1998. Under a provision in SAFETEA-LU, the 
Secretary and the Administrator have the ability to go to 
States to work for the implementation of primary seat belt 
laws. In testimony before the Committee, the Secretary stated 
that she had personally gone out to States to encourage the 
enactment of primary seat belt laws.
    The Committee believes that it is critical that the 
Secretary and the Administrator be engaged in this effort and 
directs the agency to submit quarterly reports on the actions 
taken by the agency to work towards the implementation of 
primary seat belt laws in all States.
    Impaired Driving.--The Committee has provided $11,400,000 
for the impaired driving program. This level is $194,000 more 
than the President's request and $100,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level. The Committee has provided this 
additional funding based on the FARS data that showed an 
increase in the number of alcohol-related fatalities. In May of 
this year, NHTSA released preliminary Fatality Analysis 
Reporting Systems [FARS] data for 2006. These projections for 
highway fatalities in 2006 revealed some disturbing trends in 
the area of alcohol-related fatalities. After fatalities rose 
by 4 percent above the 2004 level, projections for 2006 
indicate that the number will grow by an additional 2.4 percent 
2005--this would represent the highest number of alcohol-
related fatalities since 1992. In light of these numbers, the 
Committee cannot support reducing funding for this important 
safety program, as requested by the agency.
    The Committee was pleased that in testimony before the 
Committee, the NHTSA Administrator spoke of the agency's 
renewed commitment to reducing alcohol-related fatalities. 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 of 
eliminating alcohol-impaired driving. The campaign is based on 
the principal that a combination of tough laws, aggressive 
enforcement, increased deployment of interlock technologies and 
the continuation of the national media campaign will save 
lives. The Committee encourages NHTSA's involvement in the 
development of voluntary 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 looks forward to seeing the 
recommendations of the newly-established Blue Ribbon Panel for 
the Development of Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology.
    Motorcycle Safety.--Early 2006 data indicate that for the 
ninth consecutive year, motorcycle fatalities are projected to 
increase. This represents an increase of 125 percent since 
1997. It is clear from the data that the old solutions to this 
problem are not working and that significant efforts are needed 
to make real strides in reducing motorcycle fatalities. The 
Committee has included the President's request for additional 
funding for this program and includes a level of $992,000 for 
the motorcycle safety program, which is $192,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    In testimony before the Committee the NHTSA Administrator 
discussed the importance of helmet use and training. Supporting 
this idea, in February, the Secretary encouraged manufacturers 
to provide free or discounted rider training or helmets with 
the purchase of motorcycles sold in the United States. While 
the Committee agrees that helmet use and training are 
important, the Committee questions if improving access to 
training and helmets will be sufficient to achieve the dramatic 
reductions in motorcycle fatalities that have proven so 
challenging for the agency.
    In order to more fully understand the impact of the 
agency's efforts to reduce the number of motorcycle fatalities, 
the Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committee on Appropriations 90 days after the enactment 
of this act, outlining specific activities that the agency will 
undertake in order to change this pattern of increasing 
motorcycle fatalities. This report should include how the 
activities funded by the agency are resulting in fewer 
motorcycle fatalities. As part of this report, the agency 
should include the specific activities that will be undertaken 
as a result of the increased funding provided by the Committee. 
Further, NHTSA should include in this report how manufacturers 
are responding to the Secretary's request to provide free or 
discounted helmets and training, and what impact this is having 
on helmet use and fatality reductions.
    The Committee also notes that the NTSB held a public forum 
on motorcycle safety in September 2006. The Committee 
encourages the agency to look at recommendations that may 
result from this forum and work to implement these strategies 
and recommendations where possible.
    Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs.--The Committee is 
concerned by the reduction in funding for the pedestrian, 
bicycle and pupil transportation program. FARS data from 2005 
showed an increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities, and 
projections for 2006 indicate further increases in bicycle 
fatalities. The Committee has included a funding level of 
$1,665,000. This level is $212,000 more than the request and 
consistent with the level provided in fiscal year 2007.
    National EMS Information System.--The Committee continues 
to support efforts to develop a national database for the 
collection of EMS data. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 
the National Emergency Medical Services Information System 
[NEMSIS], which is $750,000 more than the requested level. This 
funding is for the implementation of the database by the 
National Center for Statistics and Analysis [NCSA] and for the 
continued support of the NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center. 
The Committee believes that a comprehensive EMS system is 
critical in providing prompt, quality care to automobile crash 
victims.

                         RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

    Crash Avoidance and Human-Vehicle Performance.--The 
Committee applauds NHTSA's announcement that it will require 
all vehicles to have electronic stability control, which is 
expected to save up to 10,000 lives annually. In addition, the 
NHTSA Administrator testified before the Committee about the 
importance of researching and deploying crash avoidance 
technologies. The Committee supports these efforts and believes 
it is critical to continue research into other promising 
technologies that will improve the safety of vehicles. As part 
of the agency's fiscal year 2009 budget, the Committee directs 
NHTSA to provide detailed information on the crash avoidance 
technologies that are being researched and tested. This should 
include identifications of which technologies show the most 
promise of saving a substantial number of lives. In addition, 
the agency should submit proposed timelines for research 
completion and the possible deployment of promising 
technologies. In developing these timeframes, the Committee 
encourages the agency to be mindful that as technology 
continues to evolve, it is critical that the agency move at a 
pace that will allow the agency to be the leader in developing 
and promoting safety-related technologies.
    Plastic and Composite Vehicles.--The Committee recognizes 
the development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the 
automotive industry and the important role these technologies 
play in improving automobile performance. The Committee 
recommends an additional $500,000 to continue development of a 
roadmap for Lightweight Plastic and Composite Intensive 
Vehicles [PCIV] research to examine possible safety benefits. 
The program will help facilitate a foundation of cooperation 
between DOT, the Department of Energy and industry stakeholders 
for the development of safety-centered approaches for future 
lightweight automotive design. Requested by Senator Murray.
    Vehicle Backover Avoidance.--As part of the fiscal year 
2006 appropriations bill, the Committee directed NHTSA to 
conduct a study of vehicle backover avoidance technology. That 
report was finalized in November 2006. While NHTSA identified 
some challenges with the current technologies, the agency also 
identified areas for further action. NHTSA noted that its 
future plans included: conducting additional human factors 
research; developing test procedures for evaluating system 
effectiveness, improving backover data collection methods; and 
working with industry on continued research and development on 
backover technologies. The Committee supports NHTSA's efforts 
to continue to pursue this safety issue, and looks forward to 
the recommendations that may result from its continued 
examination of this issue.
    Motorcycle Fatality Rate Calculation.--In addition to 
changing its fatality rate goals, the Department has changed 
the way that motorcycle fatality rates are being calculated. 
The budget proposes to shift from measuring motorcycle 
accidents against VMT, to measuring fatalities against the 
number of motorcycle registrations. However, in changing the 
calculation, it becomes difficult to evaluate the real progress 
that NHTSA is making in meeting its goal of reducing 
fatalities. Therefore, while NHTSA may begin to use this new 
measure, in this time of transition, NHTSA is directed to 
continue including fatality rates based on VMT in order to 
enable the Committee to have an accurate comparative measure of 
its progress.

                        national driver register


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Liquidation    Limitation
                                               of contract        on
                                              authorization  obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007........................    $4,000,000    $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.......................     4,000,000     4,000,000
Committee recommendation....................     4,000,000     4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding to implement and operate the 
Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety 
by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in 
communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to 
identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked 
for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the 
influence of alcohol or other drugs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

    The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract 
authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred 
in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The 
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the 
budget estimate and is equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted 
level.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended 
limitation is the same as the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..................     $587,750,000     $587,750,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................      599,250,000      599,250,000
Committee recommendation..............      599,250,000      599,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    SAFETEA-LU reauthorizes three State grant programs: highway 
safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and 
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and 
authorizes for the first time an additional five State 
programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety 
information systems improvement grants, high visibility 
enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety 
incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants.
    SAFETEA-LU established a new safety belt performance 
incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United 
States Code; SAFETEA-LU also established a new State traffic 
safety information system improvement program incentive grants 
program under section 408 of title 23, United States Code; 
SAFETEA-LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of title 23, 
United States Code; SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program to 
administer at least two high-visibility traffic safety law 
enforcement campaigns each year to achieve one or both of the 
following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-
impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/or (2) increase the 
use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles.
    Motorcyclist Safety.--Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU 
established a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle 
safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs.
    Child Safety.--Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new 
incentive grant program these grants may be used only for child 
safety seat and child restraint programs.
    Grant Administrative Expenses.--Section 2001(a)(11) of 
SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses 
related to the administration of the grants programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

    The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation 
of contract authorization of $599,250,000 for payment on 
obligations incurred in carryout provision of the highway 
traffic safety grant programs. The Committee recommendation is 
consistent with the amount of contract authorization for 
highway traffic safety grant programs under SAFETEA-LU. The 
recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the 
budget estimate and $11,500,000 more than fiscal year 2007 
enacted level.

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$599,250,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs 
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal 
to the budget estimate and $11,500,000 more than fiscal year 
2007 enacted level.
    The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 
section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or 
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for 
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
    The Committee recommends a separate limitation on 
obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant 
program as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402)...................    $225,000,000
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405)......      25,000 000
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant     131,000,000
 Program (section 410)..................................
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009)......      29,000,000
Motorcyclist Safety (section 2010)......................       6,000,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements          34,500,000
 (408)..................................................
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive           6,000,000
 (section 2011).........................................
Safety Belt Performance Grants (406)....................     124,500,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      18,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program.--In 
response to a request from the Committee, the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General conducted an audit of NHTSA's 
Impaired Driving grant program. The audit found that NHTSA 
needed to develop better performance measures in order to 
determine the effectiveness of the Federal funding spent on 
these initiatives. The Committee believes that it is critical 
that NHTSA work with States to develop and monitor 
implementation strategies for its impaired driving program. 
With alcohol-related fatalities increasing, it is critical that 
the agency fully understand effective strategies for reducing 
impaired driving fatalities, as well as the challenges that 
States face so that the agency can make improvements to the 
program. As such, the Committee encourages NHTSA to move as 
quickly as possibly to fulfill the recommendations of the DOT 
IG. The Committee also requests that the DOT IG continue to 
monitor NHTSA's progress in meeting these recommendations and 
brief the Committee on its findings.
    High Visibility Enforcement.--The Committee continues to 
support the efforts of NHTSA to combine law enforcement and 
paid advertisement to increase seat belt use and decrease 
impaired driving. The agency conducted three high visibility 
campaigns with the funding provided in 2006. Over the Memorial 
Day holiday, the agency conducted its ``Click It or Ticket'' 
high visibility enforcement mobilization aimed at increasing 
seat belt usage. The Committee was also encouraged by NHTSA's 
increased efforts on impaired driving in 2006. The agency 
conducted two mobilizations around impaired driving. The first 
mobilization, conducted over Labor Day, included the rollout of 
the agency's new impaired driving slogan ``Drunk Driving. Over 
the Limit. Under Arrest.'' In addition, the first holiday 
impaired-driving mobilization occurred in December. The 
Committee expects the agency to continue its efforts with these 
important mobilizations.

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
                             ADMINISTRATION

    Section 140 allows $130,000 of obligation authority for 
section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to be available to pay for 
travel and expenses for State management reviews and highway 
safety staff core competency development training.
    Section 141 includes a provision that rescinds 
$12,197,113.60 in unobligated balances from amounts made 
available under the heading ``Operations and Research'' in 
prior appropriations acts.
    Section 142 includes a provision that rescinds $119,914.61 
in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the 
heading ``National Driver Register'' in prior appropriations 
acts.
    Section 143 includes a provision that rescinds $10,528,958 
in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the 
heading ``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'' in prior 
appropriations acts.

                    Federal Railroad Administration

    The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an 
operating administration within the Department of 
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of 
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department 
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the 
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible 
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve 
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad 
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to 
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical 
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad 
Administration.

                         SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $150,271,312
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     148,472,000
Committee recommendation................................     151,186,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA 
rail safety activities and all other administrative and 
operating activities related to staff and programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $151,186,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2008, which is $2,714,000 more than 
the budget request and $914,688 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that, 
$12,268,890 remains available until expended.
    The Committee is disappointed that the administration did 
not put a higher priority on funding railroad safety and 
requested fewer resources for this account for 2008. The 
Committee believes that funding the Safety and Operations 
account at the requested level would prevent rail safety 
inspectors from being able to conduct their work and travel to 
railroad sites across the country. Travel for the purposes of 
inspector training would also be undermined. Furthermore, 
according to the budget justifications submitted by the agency, 
the budget request would force the FRA to delay filling certain 
important staff vacancies for a period of 6 months. The 
Committee believes such budgeting gimmicks are irresponsible. 
The Committee is happy to debate the administration as to 
whether or not these positions are important to the agency's 
mission. But it cannot find any logic behind a policy of 
deliberately keeping the positions vacant for a temporary 
period of time, as is requested in the budget. The Committee 
has made the following adjustments to the budget request.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reject delay in replacing vacancies.....................       +$629,000
Reject travel reductions, including inspector travel....      +1,785,000
Evaluation of penalty effectiveness.....................        +300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evaluation of Penalty Effectiveness.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $300,000 for the FRA to hire an 
independent consultant to complete an impartial evaluation of 
the effectiveness of the how the agency uses its authority to 
impose penalties in enforcing its regulations and improving 
railroad safety. Imposing penalties is a central enforcement 
mechanism of the FRA. However, as noted in recent reports by 
the Government Accountability Office, the FRA has not 
systematically studied the effectiveness of how the agency uses 
this authority.
    As illustrated in chart below, the FRA has processed an 
average of well over 5,000 violations every year for the past 5 
years. The agency responds to most of these violations by 
imposing a financial penalty on the responsible party. After 
imposing the penalty, the FRA often enters negotiations over 
the level of the penalty with the responsible party, and the 
agency is willing to lower the penalty in exchange for 
commitments to make safety improvements. Over the 2002-2005 
period, the FRA imposed an average of $17,434,755 in penalties. 
The agency then collected an average of $10,247,048 over the 
same period, a difference of $7,187,707. (The FRA has not 
completed negotiations over penalties assessed in 2006.) The 
Committee respects the priority that the FRA places on 
obtaining these commitments to improve safety, but the 
Committee questions if this strategy is the most effective way 
to improve the overall safety of the railroad industry over the 
long term. 



    The evaluation funded in the bill should include, but not 
be limited to, an examination of the frequency with which FRA 
imposes penalties, the level of penalties that FRA initially 
imposes, and the use of negotiations to lower penalty levels in 
exchange for commitments to improve safety. The evaluation 
should also include an assessment of whether individual carrier 
commitments actually translated into measurable safety 
improvements, an assessment of the FRA's ability to determine 
whether such measurable improvements were made, and an 
assessment as to how the FRA allows a railroad's performance in 
this area to influence the agency's discounting of penalties in 
the future. The Committee directs the FRA to report within 90 
days on its schedule for the completion of the evaluation, and 
to submit a comprehensive report within 18 months on the 
findings of the evaluation.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $34,524,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      32,250,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,250,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Railroad Research and Development provides for research in 
the development of safety and performance standards for 
railroads and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's 
transportation infrastructure.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,250,000 
for railroad research and development, which is $4,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $1,726,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends:
    $3,000,000 for the Next Generation Rail Tank Car [NGRTC] 
program. This program will provide for additional baseline 
testing of existing rail tank cars and the evaluation of new 
tank car design prototypes. This research is intended to assist 
in the development of a new Federal tank car standard in the 
near term (as requested by Senator Stabenow);
    $1,000,000 for the demonstration and deployment of positive 
train control technology along the Alaska Railroad (as 
requested by Senator Stevens);
    $250,000 for the Constructed Facilities Center at West 
Virginia University to develop manufactured modules using 
innovative manufacturing techniques, advanced blast resistant 
materials and structural systems, and embedded modern sensors 
(as requested by Senator Byrd); and
    $750,000 for Marshall University, in cooperation with the 
University of Nebraska, to develop a new track stability 
technology using the actual rail lines in the States as the 
calibration test beds (as requested by Senator Byrd).

                 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    $100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The President's budget request includes $100,000,000 for a 
new capital grant program to encourage State participation in 
passenger rail service. Under the proposed program, a State or 
States would apply to the Federal Railroad Administration for 
grants for up to 50 percent of the cost of capital investments 
necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail service. 
The Committee has not provided funding for this program, 
choosing instead to direct $100,000,000 to a new ``Capital 
Assistance to States Intercity Passenger Rail Service'' 
program. This alternative program will fund similar activities 
as the President's program but on a reimbursable basis with 
slightly modified criteria.

                   PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     -$9,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

    The President's budget request includes a rescission of 
$9,000,000 from funds that had been previously appropriated for 
the renovation of the James A. Farley Post Office building as a 
train station and commercial center. The Committee has rejected 
the proposed rescission as extensive planning is currently 
underway to address the station capacity challenges facing 
Amtrak and the regional commuter railroads serving midtown 
Manhattan. The appropriated funding in question may prove to be 
a necessary component of any Federal contribution toward this 
regional solution.

     CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................    $100,000,000

    The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for capital 
assistance to States to promote new intercity passenger rail 
service as well as improve existing passenger rail corridors. 
This is a new program that was not funded in fiscal year 2007. 
This program shares many of the objectives of the Intercity 
Passenger Rail Grant Program included in the President's budget 
for 2008. As in the case of the President's proposed program, 
States may apply for grants of up to 50 percent of the cost of 
capital investments necessary to support improved intercity 
passenger rail service.
    In allocating grant funding under this program, the Federal 
Railroad Administrator shall give priority to projects to 
improve rail services that require either little or no Federal 
operating subsidy, projects where States have made a financial 
commitment to improve the safety of highway/rail grade 
crossings over which the passenger service operates, and 
projects that involve a commitment by freight railroads of 
financial resources commensurate with the benefit expected to 
their operations. The Committee recognizes that their may be 
improvements funded under this program for which the benefits 
to passenger rail operations far exceed any benefit expected to 
freight operations. The Administrator is expected to encourage 
financial contributions from freight railroads only to the 
extent that freight operations benefit from the proposed 
improvements. Funds made available under this program shall be 
subject to the same terms and conditions relating to labor 
standards as capital funds made available to Amtrak.
    The Committee believes that this program holds promise to 
alleviate some of the on-time performance problems plaguing 
Amtrak long-distance and State-supported trains. As such, the 
proposed program incorporates the identical incentive included 
in the administration's proposed program; namely, that priority 
be given to projects that involve a commitment by host freight 
railroads to an enforceable on-time performance of passenger 
trains of 80 percent or greater. Also, as in the case of the 
administration's proposed program, States applying for 
assistance must first include intercity passenger rail service 
as an integral part of their statewide transportation planning 
activities and any capital improvement for which assistance is 
sought must first appear on the requesting State's Statewide 
Transportation Improvement Plan [STIP]. Unlike the 
administration's proposed program, the Capital Grant program 
will make funding available to States for capital projects only 
on a reimbursable basis.

          THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 
operates intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the 
District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in 
various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Congress 
created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 
(Public Law 91-518) in response to private carriers' inability 
to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service. 
Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common carrier obligations of 
the private railroads in exchange for the right to priority 
access of their tracks for incremental cost.
    For fiscal year 2008, the President's budget request seeks 
a total of $800,000,000 in direct support for Amtrak, including 
$300,000,000 in efficiency incentive grants and $500,000,000 in 
capital grants. The amount requested is $493,550,000 less than 
the comparable 2007 level--a reduction of almost 40 percent. As 
in years past, the Committee cannot seriously consider the 
administration's budget request as a credible proposal since it 
will do nothing other than bankrupt the railroad. The 
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General [OIG] 
performs quarterly audits on Amtrak's finances and reports the 
results of those audits to the Committee. During hearings on 
Amtrak's finances this year, witnesses from the OIG testified 
that they saw no way that Amtrak could remain viable if funded 
at the President's requested level. While the administration 
has testified to their strong commitment to ``reform'' Amtrak, 
the fact remains that no such ``reforms'', merited or not, can 
occur if the railroad goes into receivership and is required to 
terminate all intercity passenger rail service. As such, for 
fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided $1,370,000,000 for 
Amtrak's operating and capital needs. The amount provided is 
$76,450,000 more than the comparable level for fiscal year 
2007.

    OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $490,050,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  \1\300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     485,000,000

\1\Included as ``efficiency incentive grants''

    The Committee provides $485,000,000 for operating grants 
for Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account 
for the difference between Amtrak's self-generated operating 
revenues and its total operating costs. The amount provided is 
$185,000,000 more than the President's request which sought 
such operating assistance through an efficiency incentive grant 
program. The amount provided is $5,050,000 less than the 
comparable amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
    On May 22, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation reported a bill reauthorizing Amtrak with 
broad bipartisan support. Included within that legislation are 
numerous reform proposals for the railroad and its operations. 
Pending the enactment of such a final comprehensive Amtrak 
reform bill, the Committee has included most of the legislative 
provisions from prior appropriations acts governing the 
availability of Amtrak operating subsidies through a route-by-
route grant making process approved by the Secretary of 
Transportation.
    Amtrak Efficiency Initiatives/Labor Contracts.--The 
Committee is greatly disturbed by Amtrak's failure to reach 
collective bargaining agreements with the majority of Amtrak's 
workforce. Most of Amtrak's employees have now gone for more 
than 7 years without a general wage increase. As such, 
compensation for a great many Amtrak craftspeople has fallen 
further and further behind that of craftspeople conducting 
identical work for freight and commuter railroads. Testimony 
before the Committee indicates that, in some cases, the extent 
of this pay differential has reached or exceeded 20 percent. 
The Amtrak President testified to the Committee that these 
``big gaps'' have made it increasingly difficult to retain the 
skilled workers the railroad requires. Moreover, these pay gaps 
have resulted in employee morale reaching an all-time low. The 
willingness of Amtrak employees to cooperate on important 
efficiency initiatives has deteriorated badly.
    Amtrak's failure to reach a labor settlement is not a 
result of inadequate Federal funding. To the contrary, salary 
and benefit costs are derived from Amtrak's operating budget 
which is financed mostly by self-generated revenues. For each 
of the last several years, the Committee has provided Amtrak 
with operating support at or near the levels sought by Amtrak's 
Board of Directors. Any differences between the larger overall 
funding requests submitted by Amtrak's Board and actual Federal 
appropriations have come in the area of the railroad's capital 
budget.
    When it comes to revenue being available for operating 
costs, Amtrak's self-generated operating revenues have actually 
exceeded initial company estimates recently due to better-than-
expected ticket sales across the entirety of Amtrak's national 
rail network. While pleased with Amtrak's improved financial 
performance, the Committee is concerned that these revenues 
might be directed toward increased capital spending rather than 
be held in reserve to ensure that all the funds needed for new 
collective bargaining agreements are immediately available to 
the railroad. The following chart prepared by the DOT Inspector 
General displays the railroads better-than-expected operating 
performance for the current fiscal year:



    Amtrak's inability to reach a labor agreement is all the 
more disturbing in the light of two recent decisions by Amtrak 
management and its Board of Directors. In late May 2007, Amtrak 
management sought to institute an across-the-board 10 percent 
salary increase for Amtrak managers in many specified 
locations. This came as most of Amtrak's agreement employees 
entered their eighth year without a general wage increase. 
Amtrak management hastily cancelled its plan once it came to 
the attention of the public, the Congress and Amtrak's wage 
workforce.
    In late 2006, the decision was made to provide a lavish 
``golden parachute'' to Amtrak's outgoing interim CEO. 
Compensation for the interim CEO for calendar year 2006, in 
combination with an additional recalculated 2006 severance 
payment that was provided in January of 2007, totaled 
$478,432.96--an amount that exceeded the salary of the 
President of the United States by just less than 20 percent. 
The Committee notes that, under the provisions of section 24315 
of title 49, United States Code, Amtrak is required to report 
to the House of Representatives and the Senate ``relevant 
information about a decision to pay an officer of Amtrak more 
than the rate for level I of the Executive Schedule . . . '' It 
appears that the entire compensation package of the departed 
interim CEO may not have been fully reported consistent with 
this statute. The Committee does not believe that compensation 
of this amount can possibly be warranted, especially given the 
overall environment of pay austerity at the railroad. In this 
regard, the Committee requests that the Amtrak Board of 
Directors send a letter to the Committee detailing the 
circumstances that justified this level of compensation to the 
individual in question. In addition, the Committee requests 
that the Amtrak Inspector General investigate whether and why 
this level of compensation was or was not appropriately 
reported to the House of Representatives and the Senate, as 
required by law.
    Amtrak management is currently considering a series of 
strategic initiatives to further improve Amtrak's financial 
performance and reduce the railroad's need for Federal 
operating subsidies. Almost all of these initiatives will 
require the cooperation of Amtrak labor. Many of the Amtrak 
managers who will be charged with executing these initiatives 
have admitted that, with the current fractious environment at 
Amtrak, these cost-saving initiatives will have to await a 
labor compensation settlement with the workforce. As such, both 
in the interest of fairness and in the interest of moving 
forward with Amtrak's reform agenda, the Committee directs 
Amtrak to immediately move to finalize appropriate settlements 
with its workforce.
    Taxpayer-Subsidized Offshoring of Amtrak Jobs.--As part of 
the development of the appropriations bill providing funding 
for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007, the Committee included a 
provision that would immediately terminate Federal funding for 
Amtrak should the corporation contract for services to be 
performed overseas that had been provided domestically on or 
before July 1, 2006. The necessity for this provision was 
brought about by the Amtrak Board of Directors giving 
consideration to moving some of Amtrak's reservation customer 
service functions overseas. In the wake of the Committee's 
response last year, Amtrak abandoned its plan. The Committee 
still considers it unconscionable that the Nation's taxpayer-
subsidized national railroad might consider moving jobs 
overseas. And while the Committee is not aware of any similar 
proposals being considered by the Amtrak Board, the Committee 
has included a permanent provision terminating Federal 
subsidies in the wake of any such action (Sec. 150).
    Food and Beverage Service.--The Committee continues to be 
supportive of Amtrak's efforts to reduce its operating loses 
stemming from food and beverage service. The forecasted loss 
for 2007 is expected to be almost 25 percent below the actual 
loss experienced in 2005. The Committee expects Amtrak to 
continue to make efforts to reduce this loss while 
simultaneously working to improve customer satisfaction. The 
DOT Inspector General is encouraged to continue to monitor 
these efforts.

  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $772,200,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     885,000,000

    The Committee recommends $885,000,000 for capital and debt 
service grants for Amtrak. Of this amount, not more than 
$285,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The 
amount provided is $112,800,000 more than the comparable 2007 
appropriation and $385,000,000 more than the President's 
request.
    Amtrak capital expenses are dedicated to maintaining 
Amtrak's capital plant in a state of good repair, keeping aging 
equipment in safe working order, and overhauling rolling stock 
to minimize equipment failures. The lion's share of Amtrak's 
annual capital grant goes toward maintaining the Northeast 
Corridor due to the railroad's sole ownership of the majority 
of that corridor. As in the case of Amtrak operating expenses, 
the Committee has included most of the legislative provisions 
from prior appropriations acts governing the availability of 
Amtrak capital grants through a route-by-route grant making 
process approved by the Secretary of Transportation. Such 
language may become unnecessary should the Congress enact a 
comprehensive Amtrak reform bill through the normal legislative 
process.
    On-Time Performance of Amtrak Trains.--The Committee 
continues to be deeply disappointed with the dismal on-time 
performance of Amtrak trains outside the Northeast Corridor. 
The most up-to-date data available indicates that less than 40 
percent of Amtrak's long-distance trains arrive at their 
destination on time. For the month of May 2007, certain routes 
such as the Palmetto, Silver Star and Capitol Limited services 
operating over CSX track could barely deliver half their trains 
within 2 hours of their expected arrival time. Fewer than half 
of the California Zephyr and Sunset Limited trains operating 
over Union Pacific track arrived at their destination within 4 
hours of their expected arrival time. It is an astonishing 
testament to the interest of the American public in using 
Amtrak service that the railroad has been able to boost both 
passenger counts and passenger-related revenues for the long 
distance network beyond budgeted expectations given the low 
likelihood that these passengers will be able to arrive at 
their destination on time.
    While the administration has continually signaled its 
preference for State-supported passenger rail services over 
those that require a Federal operating subsidy, it is 
noteworthy that the on-time performance of many State-supported 
services is no better and, in many instances, is far worse than 
Amtrak's subsidized long-distance services. During testimony 
before the Committee, the Administrator held out the State of 
North Carolina as an ideal example of State investment in 
support of intercity rail service. Yet, the State-supported 
Carolinian service had a pathetic 11.3 percent on-time 
performance for the month of May and has been unable to arrive 
on time even one-third of the time for the year to date. It is 
hard to see how the administration can succeed in enticing 
ever-greater State participation in intercity passenger service 
without the dramatic change in operating practices and capital 
investment that will allow such services to enjoy a reasonable 
frequency of on-time arrivals.
    The chart below displays the on-time performance of 
Amtrak's trains by route; for the month of May and for the year 
to date.

          ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORT--MAY 2007 AND YEAR TO DATE
                               [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                 Service                     May 2007        2007 YTD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak System...........................            68.9            68.9
Amtrak Premium..........................            87.8            88.3
    Acela Express.......................            87.8            88.2
    Metroliner\1\.......................  ..............            97.5
Amtrak Corridor.........................            82.4            80.0
    Keystone............................            92.3            82.7
    Regional............................            77.7            78.7
Short Distance..........................            65.9            66.3
    Capitols............................            76.3            71.7
    Carolinian..........................            11.3            31.1
    Cascades............................            62.9            58.5
    Downeaster..........................            54.5            85.6
    Empire Corridor.....................            65.7            67.2
    Heartland Flyer.....................            27.4            33.5
    Hiawatha............................            86.6            87.0
    Hoosier State.......................            25.7            36.8
    Illinois............................            60.0            54.9
    Michigan............................            21.9            32.4
    Missouri............................            12.1            32.0
    Pacific Surfliner...................            78.4            76.1
    Pennsylvanian.......................            59.7            68.5
    Piedmont............................            80.0            72.9
    San Joaquins........................            76.1            68.3
Long Distance...........................            37.5            41.0
    Auto Train..........................            56.5            52.1
    California Zephyr...................  ..............  ..............
    Capitol Limited.....................            11.3            15.3
    Cardinal............................            22.2            38.5
    City of New Orleans.................            91.9            86.8
    Coast Starlight.....................            37.1            20.4
    Crescent............................            35.5            43.4
    Empire Builder......................            87.1            75.2
    Lake Shore Ltd......................            29.0            29.0
    Palmetto............................            11.3            28.2
    Silver Meteor.......................            30.6            45.4
    Silver Star.........................            12.9            27.2
    Southwest Chief.....................            38.7            66.0
    Sunset Limited......................            11.1            18.3
    Texas Eagle.........................            22.6            32.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On October 30, 2006 the last Metroliner frequency was replaced with
  Acela Express service.

    The Committee appreciates the testimony of the Federal 
Railroad Administrator in which he acknowledged the on-time 
performance of Amtrak trains as ``one of my top priorities 
outside of safety itself.'' The Committee, however, also 
believes that, in order to have a meaningful impact on this 
worsening problem, the Administrator must redouble his efforts. 
The Federal Railroad Administrator must play a central role in 
tackling this problem, both in his capacity as the Nation's 
regulator of the freight rail industry and his role as the 
Secretary's representative to the Amtrak Board of Directors. 
More than 76 percent of the delays endured by Amtrak's long 
distance trains are a result of problems associated with the 
host freight railroad. The causes are primarily interference 
with active freight traffic. In addition, deferred maintenance 
on the part of host railroads is commonly resulting in FRA-
imposed slow orders that necessarily delay Amtrak trains and 
freight trains alike. Signal delays are also a contributing 
factor.
    Outside of the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains are 
dispatched by the freight railroads over whose territory they 
operate. Legal requirements related to this dispatching 
activity were stipulated in the Rail Passenger Service Act at 
the time that the Amtrak network was statutorily established to 
take the money-losing passenger rail lines off the balance 
sheets of the Nation's freight railroads. Specifically, under 
section 24308(c) of title 49, United States Code, Amtrak trains 
have ``preference over freight transportation in using a rail 
line, junction, or crossing'' unless the Secretary of 
Transportation provides a specific exemption to this law.
    Given the dismal on-time performance of long-distance 
Amtrak trains, the Committee seriously questions whether the 
above-cited provision of the law is being adhered to. Indeed, 
when the Committee inquired of the Administrator whether the 
freight railroads were uniformly complying with both the letter 
and spirit of this law, the Administrator testified that ``I 
don't think there's uniformity in terms of the importance of 
this among the class 1 railroads.'' The Administrator's 
observation appears to be borne out in part by the vastly 
differing on-time performance of Amtrak trains depending on the 
host railroad over which they are operating. The following 
displays the comparative minutes of delay per 10,000 Amtrak 
train-miles for the six major freight railroads over which 
Amtrak operates. The figures displayed are for the last three 
fiscal years and fiscal year 2007 to date. They speak only to 
the minutes of delay for which the host railroad is determined 
to be at fault.
    For the purpose of these figures, trains that arrive onto a 
freight railroad's territory hours later than scheduled are 
only considered to be delayed if they encounter further lengthy 
delays over that railroad's territory. 



    In order to address this chronic problem, the Committee has 
included a provision (sec. 151) requiring the FRA Administrator 
to develop a comprehensive action plan to address the problem 
of on-time performance with quantifiable and measurable 
milestones and submit that plan to the Committee not later than 
January 1, 2008. The Administrator will then provide quarterly 
updates to the Committee. Those quarterly reports should 
include regularly updated quantifiable measures of progress 
opposite the Administrator's pre-established goals for those 
measures. The Administrator is also requested to include 
Amtrak's most recent on-time performance report with each of 
his quarterly submissions and any other on-time performance 
data that he thinks best illuminates conditions for the 
preceding quarter. The Committee also requests, as it did last 
year, that the DOT Inspector General conduct an audit of 
railroad dispatching practices to ascertain the extent of 
industry compliance with section 24308(c) of title 49. This 
audit should also evaluate Amtrak's operating practices and any 
hindrances they may present to the ability of freight railroads 
to dispatch Amtrak trains in a fashion to allow for on-time 
arrivals.
    The Committee has sought to give the Administrator 
additional tools to address this problem by fully funding a 
$100,000,000 grant program that is very similar in purpose and 
structure to the new Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program 
included in his budget request. In funding this new initiative, 
the Committee recognizes that capital improvements and not just 
dispatching and operational changes are essential to improving 
the on-time performance of Amtrak trains. Indeed, the Committee 
notes that it is hoped that certain capital improvement 
currently being funded by the Union Pacific Railroad will 
prompt such a dramatic improvement in the on-time performance 
of Amtrak's Coast Starlight service as to allow Amtrak to ``re-
launch'' the service with substantially improved ridership and 
revenues in 2008.
    The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
[RRIF].--The RRIF program was established by Public Law 109-178 
to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local 
governments, government-sponsored entities, or railroads. 
Credit assistance under the program may be used for 
rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No 
Federal appropriation is required to implement the program 
because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount 
required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a 
credit risk premium. The Committee continues bill language 
specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee 
commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of 
any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2008.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 150 prohibits funds for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation 
contracts for services at or from any location outside of the 
United States which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a 
full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within the United 
States.
    Section 151 requires the Federal Railroad Administrator to 
submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on Amtrak on-time performance.
    Section 152 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of 
nominal value for use in certain outreach activities.
    Section 153 clarifies the governance of contracts between 
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the State of 
Maryland.

                     Federal Transit Administration

    The Federal Transit Administration was established as a 
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization 
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred 
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist 
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, 
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning 
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services 
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide 
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural 
areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of 
transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and 
local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such 
services and systems.
    The current authorization for transit programs is contained 
in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU].
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 
and the administration's request excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                           Program                            ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2007 enacted    2008 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses......................................      $85,000,000      $89,300,000      $88,795,000
Formula and bus grants.......................................    7,262,775,000    7,871,895,000    7,872,893,000
Research and University Research Centers.....................       61,000,000       61,000,000       65,500,000
Capital investment grants....................................    1,566,000,000    1,399,818,000    1,566,000,000
Transit assistance under Public Law 110-28...................       35,000,000  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    9,009,775,000    9,422,013,000    9,593,188,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $85,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      89,300,000
Committee recommendation................................      88,795,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract 
resources, information technology, space management, travel, 
training, and other administrative expenses necessary to carry 
out its mission to promote public transportation systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $88,795,000 for the 
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended 
level of funding is $505,000 less than the budget request and 
$3,795,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator............................         $910,239
Office of Administration...............................        6,353,739
Office of Chief Counsel................................        4,545,039
Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs.....        1,480,289
Office of Program Management...........................        8,741,339
Office of Budget and Policy............................       10,857,698
Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation......        4,943,589
Office of Civil Rights.................................        3,234,489
Office of Planning.....................................        4,458,289
Regional offices.......................................       22,551,290
Central Account........................................       20,719,000
                                                        ----------------
      Total............................................       88,795,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing 
the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any 
transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial 
appropriation from this account must be approved by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the usual 
reprogramming process.
    Budget Justifications.--The FTA is directed to submit its 
fiscal year 2009 congressional justification for administrative 
expenses by office, with material detailing salaries and 
expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives for 
each office. The Committee has included this same direction in 
its reports for the past several years and is disappointed that 
the FTA decided not to include this informatiion in its fiscal 
year 2008 justifications.
    Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee 
directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports 
for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    To further support oversight activities, the bill continues 
a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the DOT Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] $2,000,000 for costs associated with 
audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including 
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must 
come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over 
the past several years, the OIG has provided critical oversight 
of a number transit projects and FTA activities, which the 
Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that 
the Inspector General will continue such activities in fiscal 
year 2008.
    Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--TEA-21, as amended, 
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant 
agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to 
submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed 
full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal 
appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and 
total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2008; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by 
individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the 
alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all 
the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 
project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project, 
which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which 
shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and 
finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and 
private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan, 
which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership 
forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and 
possible risks associated with the project.
    The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before 
approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full 
funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes 
shall include any budget revisions or program changes that 
materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the 
FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
    The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 
new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This 
update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone 
schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 
years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition, 
FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in 
the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to 
preliminary engineering or final design.

                         FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Trust fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..................................    $7,262,775,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................................     7,871,895,000
Committee recommendation..............................     7,872,893,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Formula and Bus Grants account includes funding for the 
following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels 
formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly 
individuals and individuals with disabilities; formula grants 
for non-urbanized areas; job access and reverse commute grants; 
new freedom grants; growing States and high density States 
grants; bus and bus facility grants; rail modernization grants; 
alternatives analysis; alternative transportation in parks and 
public lands; and the national transit database. In addition, 
set-asides from formula funds are directed to a grant program 
for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with 
Disabilities Act accessibility costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the 
transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2008 to 
$7,872,893,000. The recommendation is $998,000 more than the 
budget request and $610,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The Committee also recommends a rescission of 
$28,660,920 of unobligated balances.
    The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for 
project oversight in current law instead of providing an 
increase for program management of formula funds, as requested. 
The following table displays the distribution of obligation 
limitation among the program categories of formula and bus 
grants:

 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA
                             AND BUS GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Program Category                          Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbanized Area Formula\1\............................     $4,280,315,210
Over-the-road Bus Program............................          8,300,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities................        127,000,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula\1\.................        506,527,790
Bus and Bus Facility (includes clean fuels)..........        976,750,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization.........................      1,570,000,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute.......................        156,000,000
New Freedom..........................................         87,500,000
National Transit Database............................          3,500,000
Planning Programs....................................        107,000,000
Alternatives Analysis................................         25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands.         25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes funding for Growing States and High Density States under
  section 49 U.S.C. 5340.

    The following table displays the State-by-State 
distribution of funds for several of the major program 
categories in the formula and bus grants account (these 
distributions are calculated using the formulas set in SAFETEA-
LU, the most recent authorization law for transit programs):

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Section 5310
                                         Section 5307 and   Section 5311 and  Special Needs for
                 State                    5340 Urbanized       5340 Non-         Elderly and       Job Access and      New Freedom        State Total
                                               Area          urbanized Area    Individuals with   Reverse  Commute
                                                                                 Disabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............................         18,967,743         12,505,050          2,204,213          2,703,106          1,434,821         37,814,933
Alaska................................         23,855,214          5,721,809            289,439            234,562            116,702         30,217,726
American Samoa........................  .................            214,635             64,387             92,906             19,371            391,299
Arizona...............................         59,724,230          8,929,442          2,303,932          2,991,377          1,527,802         75,476,783
Arkansas..............................          9,415,565          9,546,294          1,415,478          1,589,549            813,858         22,780,744
California............................        691,715,537         21,543,724         13,479,312         22,127,365         10,852,719        759,718,657
Colorado..............................         59,294,399          7,863,905          1,601,075          1,888,599          1,187,207         71,835,185
Connecticut...........................         70,081,682          2,565,590          1,556,343          1,273,061          1,174,200         76,650,876
Delaware..............................         11,342,311          1,194,470            450,152            298,359            231,376         13,516,668
District of Columbia..................         79,177,371  .................            387,470            428,660            259,823         80,253,324
Florida...............................        208,396,143         12,951,167          8,596,136          9,374,538          5,818,487        245,136,471
Georgia...............................         77,274,081         16,164,765          3,220,644          4,212,324          2,629,438        103,501,252
Guam..................................  .................            580,149            170,961             93,031             57,482            901,623
Hawaii................................         28,578,443          1,862,059            625,787            515,987            325,082         31,907,358
Idaho.................................          6,829,596          5,505,962            596,724            711,187            344,775         13,988,244
Illinois..............................        253,306,256         13,392,178          4,975,686          5,700,444          3,858,608        281,233,172
Indiana...............................         42,740,207         12,833,559          2,615,787          2,601,117          1,746,554         62,537,224
Iowa..................................         16,059,951          9,556,364          1,345,585          1,169,311            741,492         28,872,703
Kansas................................         11,890,843          8,852,889          1,205,523          1,048,633            643,371         23,641,259
Kentucky..............................         20,710,073         12,110,611          2,031,527          2,084,502            996,040         37,932,753
Louisiana.............................         34,079,812          9,718,875          2,022,563          3,265,467          1,432,996         50,519,713
Maine.................................          4,750,881          5,149,622            706,988            570,830            330,824         11,509,145
Maryland..............................        109,118,829          4,724,691          2,150,809          2,005,658          1,674,867        119,674,854
Massachusetts.........................        181,024,866          3,285,706          2,858,085          2,628,832          2,083,996        191,881,485
Michigan..............................         78,385,418         16,374,623          4,137,957          4,498,354          3,095,926        106,492,278
Minnesota.............................         53,536,767         12,034,418          1,894,856          1,598,713          1,067,134         70,131,888
Mississippi...........................          5,954,416         10,918,097          1,419,541          1,647,623            764,714         20,704,391
Missouri..............................         43,556,459         13,072,913          2,497,833          2,524,683          1,482,137         63,134,025
Montana...............................          3,060,474          7,098,096            495,063            515,765            241,364         11,410,762
N. Mariana Islands....................            755,630             33,042             65,684            142,384             62,035          1,058,775
Nebraska..............................          9,557,161          6,190,959            797,441            634,866            349,932         17,530,359
Nevada................................         28,399,764          4,645,850            976,323            969,332            591,966         35,583,235
New Hampshire.........................          6,160,135          3,321,519            599,696            398,402            388,728         10,868,480
New Jersey............................        309,561,264          3,076,698          3,637,272          3,209,208          2,726,446        322,210,888
New Mexico............................         10,834,647          7,735,130            881,152          1,237,431            463,775         21,152,135
New York..............................        669,306,206         16,557,275          8,633,556         11,033,899          6,204,230        711,735,166
North Carolina........................         49,145,533         20,776,159          3,602,972          3,793,177          2,384,389         79,702,230
North Dakota..........................          3,828,958          3,747,619            389,871            329,393            164,778          8,460,619
Ohio..................................        101,748,647         18,857,576          4,840,115          5,002,399          3,066,599        133,515,336
Oklahoma..............................         15,521,624         10,655,874          1,670,084          1,838,017            874,177         30,559,776
Oregon................................         43,285,334          9,221,238          1,547,597          1,659,383            848,530         56,562,082
Pennsylvania..........................        172,007,072         19,101,673          5,714,682          5,678,285          3,789,620        206,291,332
Puerto Rico...........................         53,407,758          1,328,071          1,942,919          7,497,702          1,487,375         65,663,825
Rhode Island..........................         20,047,844            552,195            607,042            527,782            324,383         22,059,246
South Carolina........................         17,453,605         10,443,148          1,919,464          2,116,457          1,209,118         33,141,792
South Dakota..........................          2,897,309          4,634,250            430,630            353,508            185,724          8,501,421
Tennessee.............................         34,500,192         13,315,850          2,677,558          3,018,780          1,655,401         55,167,781
Texas.................................        227,866,301         31,856,422          7,996,679         14,044,741          6,293,740        288,057,883
Utah..................................         34,521,429          4,540,441            791,467          1,006,569            478,077         41,337,983
Vermont...............................          1,634,892          2,489,667            366,627            211,242            133,277          4,835,705
Virgin Islands........................            913,853  .................            161,754             93,402             38,338          1,207,347
Virginia..............................         66,365,010         11,756,780          2,824,264          2,886,350          2,000,997         85,833,401
Washington............................        114,811,537          9,017,146          2,401,029          2,803,102          1,752,413        130,785,227
West Virginia.........................          6,275,737          6,351,174          1,065,301          1,197,152            595,122         15,484,486
Wisconsin.............................         45,711,829         12,715,465          2,192,062          2,133,756          1,490,682         64,243,794
Wyoming...............................          1,637,049          4,384,906            311,903            228,738            111,982          6,674,578
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..............................      4,250,983,887        483,577,790        126,365,000        154,440,000         86,625,000      5,101,991,677
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight.............................         29,331,323          2,190,000            635,000          1,560,000            875,000         34,591,323
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................      4,280,315,210        485,767,790        127,000,000        156,000,000         87,500,000      5,136,583,000
                                       =================================================================================================================
Tribal Transit Program................  .................         12,000,000  .................  .................  .................         12,000,000
RTAP..................................  .................          8,760,000  .................  .................  .................          8,760,000
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total...........................      4,280,315,210        506,527,790        127,000,000        156,000,000         87,500,000      5,157,343,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been 
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of 
capital investment funds for longer than the original 3-year 
availability. The Committee, however, has extended funding for 
many of these projects for more than 1 fiscal year, in an 
effort to give transit agencies and FTA the opportunity to 
spend these funds. The Committee strongly urges FTA to obligate 
the grants before the commencement of the fiscal year 2008 
calendar, as the Committee will not look favorably upon any 
further requests for an extension of funds past 1 fiscal year. 
Three, even four, fiscal years is more than an adequate amount 
of time for project sponsors to obligate the discretionary 
grants, except in the most unusual of circumstances. Transit 
agencies are urged not to seek discretionary funding when the 
work cannot be completed in a 3-year timeframe. In addition, by 
October 30, 2007, FTA should submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing which of these 
projects have not obligated the funds, including an explanation 
of why this could not be achieved.
    The availability of these particular funds is extended for 
1 additional year, absent further congressional direction. The 
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 
fiscal year 2005 for the following bus and bus facilities 
projects:
    Alaska--Alaska Mental Health Trust bus program
    Alaska--Native Medical Center intermodal bus/parking 
facility
    Alaska--Copper River Transit Program
    Alaska--Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility
    Alabama--Birmingham Intermodal Facility
    Alabama--Jacksonville State University buses
    Alabama--Vans, CASA of Marshall County
    Arkansas--CATA bus replacement
    Colorado--Statewide buses and bus facilities
    Connecticut--Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center
    Hawaii--Rural bus program
    Hawaii--Pahoa/Hilo Bus routes
    Illinois--Bus facilities for Bloomington, Macomb, Peoria, 
and Rock Island
    Illinois--Downstate Illinois replacement buses
    Illinois--Champaign Day Care Center Park-n-Ride
    Illinois--City of Chicago's Free Trolley System
    Louisiana--Statewide buses and bus facilities
    Massachusetts--Springfield Union Station Intermodal 
facility
    Maryland--Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion
    Maryland--Statewide buses and bus facilities
    Michigan--Allegan County Transportation
    Missouri--Statewide buss and bus facilities
    Missouri--Southern Missouri buses and bus facilities
    Mississippi--City of Jackson
    Mississippi--Harrison County HOV/Bus rapid transit Canal 
Road Intermodal Connector
    Mississippi--Mississippi Valley State University mass 
transit program expansion
    Montana--Billings public bus and medical transfer facility
    New Mexico--West Side transit facility
    New York--Rochester Central Bus Terminal
    New York--Renaissance Square
    Pennsylvania--Ardmore transit center
    Pennsylvania--Union/Snyder Transportation Alliance, Union 
County
    Tennessee--Statewide buses and bus facilities
    Tennessee--Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility
    Texas--Waco Transit Alternative Fueled bus purchase
    Texas--Denton Downtown multimodal transit facility
    Texas--Laredo Bus Hub and Maintenance Facility
    Texas--Bryan/College Station Bus Replacement program
    Texas--Corpus Christi buses and bus facilities
    Texas--Capitol Metro buses and bus facilities
    Texas--Brazos Transit District passenger shelter program
    Texas--The Woodlands Capital Cost of Contracting Program
    Texas--Capital Metro North Operating Facility
    Texas--CNG bus replacement
    Texas--Bryan Intermodal Transit Terminal with parking
    Texas--El Paso buses
    Virginia--Hampton Roads Transit Maintenance Facilities
    Virginia--James City County natural gas buses
    Washington--King County Metro, King county Airfield 
Transfer Area
    Washington--Community Transit Bus and Van Replacement
    Washington--Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Transportation 
Project.
    The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided 
in fiscal year 2004 and previous acts for the following bus and 
bus facilities projects:
    Alabama--Birmingham Transit Corridor
    Alaska--Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility
    Connecticut--Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center
    Iowa--UNI Multimodal Project (2005)
    Massachusetts--Springfield Union Station Intermodal 
facility
    Mississippi--Intermodal Facility JIA
    Pennsylvania--Pittsburgh Water Taxi
    South Dakota--Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe public buses and 
bus facilities
    Vermont--Brattleboro Multimodal
    Vermont--Burlington Transit Facilities
    Washington--Grant Transit Authority bus facility.
    Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provides 
$7,000,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] 
for section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee 
expects IDOT to provide at least $3,500,000 for Downstate 
Illinois replacement buses in Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana, 
Danville, Decatur, Peoria, Pekin, Quincy, River Valley, 
Rockford, Rock Island, Springfield, Madison County, Rides MTD, 
South Central MTD, Macomb and for Pinecrest Community in Mount 
Morris, IL. Further, the Committee expects IDOT to provide 
appropriate funds for bus facilities in Bloomington, Galesburg, 
River Valley Metro in Kankakee, Macomb, Peoria, and Rock 
Island, including $250,000 for the Macomb maintenance facility 
and $250,000 for the Kankakee's River Valley Metro operations 
facility. Requested by Senator Durbin.
    Glenmont Metrorail Parking Garage Expansion, Maryland.--
Funds made available for Glenmont Metrorail parking garage 
expansion, Maryland in the fiscal year 2005 section 5309 bus 
and bus facilities program shall be made available for 
Montgomery County, Maryland, to purchase four small buses to 
provide a commuter shuttle from the Norbeck Park and Ride Lot 
to the Glenmont station when construction of the new garage at 
Glenmont begins. These buses will operate on restructured Ride 
On routes. Requested by Senators Mikulski and Cardin.
    Springfield Union Station Intermodal Facility, 
Massachusetts.--The Committee continues to be supportive of the 
construction of a new, affordable, intermodal facility in the 
city of Springfield, Massachusetts. However, the Committee 
notes that considerable funds already appropriated for this 
project from as far back as 2002 remain unobligated. Still 
other funds provided for the project in authorization acts also 
remain unobligated. The Committee is encouraged by signs that 
the State and local leadership has sought to jump start the 
process toward finalizing a new design for this facility that 
can be accomplished within the funds provided. The Committee 
asks that the Federal Transit Administration to continue to 
work with local leaders to expedite this process so that all 
appropriated funds can be obligated promptly.
    West Virginia Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.--Consistent 
with the provisions of section 3044 of SAFETEA-LU, the bill 
includes a total of $5,000,000 for bus and bus facilities 
within the State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2007.
    Metra.--The Committee understands that Metra and the 
Regional Transportation Authority [RTA] are confined by State 
law to operate in the six county metropolitan Chicago area. 
However, due to high population growth rates in the outer 
collar counties of Northeastern Illinois, and the serious need 
for reliable transit, the Committee recommends that the State 
of Illinois amend its RTA Act to incorporate these high growth 
counties--Boone, DeKalb, Kankakee, Kendall, and Winnebago--that 
include large metropolitan areas such as Rockford into its area 
of operation so that Metra can expand into these areas. The 
Committee is aware of the recent feasibility study and 
alternatives analysis conducted for Metra service extension to 
Boon/Winnebago Counties and supports this initiative. Requested 
by Senator Durbin.
    Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority.--The Committee 
recognizes the creation of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit 
Authority as a means for uniting and addressing collective 
transit needs in seven counties in West-Central Florida, and 
encourages its members to work expeditiously to identify next 
steps, long-term plans, and future initiatives to advance 
public transit in the Tampa Bay area. Requested by Senator 
Nelson of Florida.
    Hybrid Bus Cost Share.--The Committee has not included a 
provision to allow FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the 
net capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid 
electric system in a bus as proposed in the budget. The 
Committee has stressed the importance of hybrid technology 
buses in the past and remains committed to seeing hybrid 
technology proliferate throughout the Nation's transit systems. 
However, the Committee believes that waiving the required match 
would result in less hybrid buses being purchased by transit 
properties, not more. The Committee strongly believes that 
local share requirements are the best deal for taxpayers when 
it comes to stretching increasingly scarce Federal resources.
    Within the funding available to the bus and bus facilities 
program, funds are to be made available to the following 
projects and activities:

                         BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
          Project name           recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st District Bus Replacement         $6,000,000  Levin/Stabenow
 and Facilities, MI.
Acquisition of MARTA Clean Fuel       4,000,000  Chambliss/Isakson
 Buses, GA.
Alabama Senior Transportation         1,000,000  Shelby
 Program, AL.
Albuquerque Transit Facility            850,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Rehabilitation, NM.
Altoona, Pennsylvania                   500,000  Casey
 Intermodal Transportation
 Center, PA.
Automotive-Based Fuel Cell            1,500,000  Carper/Biden
 Hybrid Bus Program, DE.
BART Intermodal Station               1,000,000  Feinstein
 Infrastructure Improvements to
 Improve Bus Safety and Access,
 CA.
Ben Franklin Transit, Fleet           1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Expansion and Modernization,
 WA.
Bennington Multi-Modal                  500,000  Sanders
 Facility, VT.
Bi-County Transit Center, MD...       1,000,000  Mikulski/Cardin
Bridgeport Intermodal                 6,000,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Transportation Center, CT.
Bus and Bus Facilities, City of         400,000  Bingaman
 Roswell, NM.
Bus and Bus Facilities, Grant         1,500,000  Bingaman
 County, NM.
Bus and Bus Facilities, MT.....       1,000,000  Baucus/Tester
Bus Replacement for Rural               500,000  Sanders
 Community Transportation of
 St. Johnsbury, VT.
Bus Shuttle Project for                 500,000  Lautenberg/Menendez
 Seniors, Irvington, NJ.
Capital Metropolitan                    520,000  Cornyn/Hutchison
 Transportation Authority,
 Austin, TX.
CCTA Buses, Facilities and            4,000,000  Leahy/Sanders
 Equipment, VT.
Central Florida Regional              1,589,833  Martinez
 Transportation Authority
 (LYNX), Bus Acquisition, FL.
Central Maryland Transit              1,000,000  Mikulski/Cardin
 Operations Facility, MD.
City of Mobile's Transit              2,000,000  Shelby
 System, AL.
City of Moultrie Intermodal             500,000  Chambliss
 Facility, Moultrie, GA.
City of Oxford Transit, MS.....         500,000  Cochran
City of Poughkeepsie Transit          1,000,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Hub, NY.
City Utilities of Springfield         2,000,000  Bond
 Intermodal Transfer Facility,
 MO.
Clallam Transit Vehicle                 280,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Clare Country Transit                   750,000  Levin/Stabenow
 Corporation/Harrison Airport
 Facility, MI.
Coast Transit Authority Bus and       4,000,000  Cochran
 Bus Facilities, MS.
Colorado Transit Coalition--          6,000,000  Allard/Salazar
 Statewide Bus & Bus
 Facilities, CO.
Columbia County Public                  120,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Transportation Vehicle
 Replacement, WA.
Commonwealth Avenue Green Line        1,000,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Station, MA.
Community Transit Vehicle             1,500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Coralville Intermodal Facility,       1,000,000  Harkin/Grassley
 IA.
CSKT Reservation Transportation         350,000  Tester/Baucus
 Program, MT.
C-TRAN Vehicle Replacement, WA.         700,000  Murray/Cantwell
Culver City Multi-Modal Light         1,000,000  Feinstein/Boxer
 Rail Station, CA.
Downtown Transit Center,              2,000,000  Bayh/Lugar
 Indianapolis, IN.
Everett Transit Vehicle                 600,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Fleet and Capital Items Los           1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Alamos County Transit System,
 NM.
Forest Park Circulator/I-64           1,000,000  Bond
 Closure Alleviation, MO.
Franklin Street Station               1,500,000  Specter
 Restoration (BARTA), PA.
Grays Harbor Transit Vehicle            150,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Greater Minnesota Transit Bus         4,000,000  Coleman/Klobuchar
 and Bus Facilities, MN.
Houston Downtown Clean Fuel           3,000,000  Cornyn
 Transit Initiative, TX.
Hybrid-Electric Bus Acquisition       2,500,000  Specter
 (SEPTA), PA.
Idaho Transit Coalition               4,520,000  Crapo/Craig
 Advanced Public Transportation
 System Deployment, ID.
Illinois Bus and Bus                  7,000,000  Durbin
 Facilities, IL.
Intermodal Facilities, UT......       6,000,000  Bennett/Hatch
Island Transit Vehicle                  600,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS...       1,500,000  Cochran
Jefferson Transit Vehicle               500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Kansas City Area Transportation       1,000,000  Bond
 Authority Bus Replacement
 (KCATA), MO.
Lafayette Multimodal                  1,000,000  Vitter/Landrieu
 Transportation Facility, LA.
Lakewood Multi-Modal Facility         2,000,000  Menendez/Lautenberg
 Phase 1, NJ.
Link Transit Vehicle                    550,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Main Street Bus Rapid Transit         1,000,000  Kyl
 Buses, Mesa, AZ.
Mason Transit Vehicle                   400,000  Murray
 Replacement, WA.
Mass Transportation Authority,        4,000,000  Levin/Stabenow
 Flint, Michigan Fiscal Year
 2008 Bus and Bus Facilities
 Program, MI.
Metro Area Transit, Omaha, NE--         700,000  Nelson, Ben
 Video Surveillance Security
 System for Transit Buses/
 Americans with Disabilities
 Act Complementary Paratransit
 Vehicles, NE.
Miami-Dade Transit Bus                1,000,000  Martinez/Nelson, Bill
 Procurement Plan, FL.
Minnesota's Union Depot Multi-        1,000,000  Klobuchar
 modal Transit Hub, MN.
Nassau County Hub, NY..........       2,000,000  Clinton/Schumer
Newark Penn Station Intermodal        2,000,000  Menendez/Lautenberg
 Improvements, NJ.
North Orange/South Seminole ITS       1,750,000  Nelson, Bill/Martinez
 Enhanced Circulator, City of
 Orlando, FL.
Norwalk Pulse Point Facility            200,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Safety Improvements, CT.
Norwich Intermodal                    3,000,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Transportation Center, CT.
Pacific Transit Vehicle                  50,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Replacement, WA.
Paducah Area Transit System, KY       2,000,000  McConnell
Paratransit Vans, Las Cruces,           320,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 NM.
Paratransit Vehicle                     480,000  Cornyn/Hutchison
 Replacement, Abliene, TX.
Pierce Transit Penninsula Park        1,500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 and Ride, WA.
Port Angeles International              500,000  Murray
 Gateway Project, WA.
Pullman Transit Maintenance             800,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Facility Expansion, WA.
Reno & Sparks Intermodal              1,000,000  Reid/Ensign
 Transportation Centers, NV.
Replacement Buses for The             1,000,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Westchester County Bee-Line
 Bus System, NY.
Replacement Buses, Centre Area        1,000,000  Specter/Casey
 Transportation Authority
 (CATA), PA.
Replacement of Fixed Route            1,000,000  Carper/Biden
 Transit Buses, DE.
Rhode Island Public Transit           2,043,130  Reed
 Authority Intelligent
 Transportation System, RI.
Rural Bus Program for Hawaii,         2,000,000  Inouye
 Maui, and Kauai Counties, HI.
San Antonio VIA Bus Facility          3,000,000  Hutchison/Cornyn
 Improvements and Bus Fleet
 Modernization, TX.
San Diego Balboa Park Trolleys,         500,000  Feinstein/Boxer
 CA.
Santa Fe Place Transit Center,        1,000,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 NM.
Senior Transportation                 1,600,000  Brown
 Connection, OH.
SEPTA Interoperability                1,000,000  Casey
 Communications Initiative, PA.
Small Bus Replacement, St.            1,000,000  Klobuchar/Coleman
 Cloud Metro Bus, MN.
Southeast Missouri                    1,000,000  Bond
 Transportation Service (SMTS),
 MO.
Southside Bus Facility                2,000,000  Warner/Webb
 Replacement in Hampton Roads,
 VA.
Spokane Transit Smart Bus             1,000,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Technology Modernization, WA.
State of Arkansas--Bus and Bus        5,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 Facilities for Urban, Rural,
 and Elderly and Disabled
 Agencies, AR.
Statewide Bus and Bus                 2,000,000  Bond
 Facilities, MO.
Statewide Bus and Bus                 1,000,000  Ensign/Reid
 Facilities, NV.
Statewide Bus and Bus Facility          500,000  Stevens/Murkowski
 Enhancements, AK.
Statewide Bus Replacement, IA..       7,000,000  Harkin/Grassley
Statewide Electric Hybrid Bus         4,000,000  Lugar
 Initiative by the Indiana
 Transit Association, IN.
Statewide Transit, ND..........       2,000,000  Conrad/Dorgan
Sunset (RTC) Maintenance              1,000,000  Reid
 Facility, NV.
Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus       6,000,000  Alexander
 Facilities, TN.
Transit Authority of Northern         1,000,000  McConnell
 Kentucky Bus Replacement
 Project, KY.
Transit Vehicle Fleet Upgrades,       2,080,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 NM.
TRANSPO Bus Operations Center,        1,000,000  Bayh/Lugar
 South Bend, IN.
Treasure Valley Transit                 480,000  Craig/Crapo
 Facilities, ID.
University Place Intermodal             750,000  Murray
 Transit Facility, WA.
Vans for Vermont Senior                 200,000  Sanders
 Centers, VT.
Vermont Statewide Buses,              1,000,000  Leahy/Sanders
 Facilities, and Equipment, VT.
West Orange Township Senior             200,000  Lautenberg
 Citizen & Handicapped Shuttle
 Bus, NJ.
Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus       5,000,000  Kohl
 Facilities, WI.
WMATA Bus and Bus Facilities,         2,000,000  Warner/Webb
 DC/MD/VA.
Wyandotte County Unified              1,000,000  Roberts
 Government Transit Bus
 Replacement and Facilities
 Enhancements, KS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the funding available to the alternatives analysis 
program, funds are to be made available to the following 
projects and activities:

                          ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
          Project name           recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downtown Orlando East-West           $1,000,000  Martinez/Nelson, Bill
 Circulator System, Orlando,
 Florida.
Bus Rapid Transit Improvements,       1,000,000  Martinez/Nelson, Bill
 Broward County, Florida.
Miami-Dade County Metrorail           2,000,000  Martinez/Nelson, Bill
 Orange Line Expansion, Florida.
MARTA Clifton Corridor                1,000,000  Isakson/Chambliss
 (Lindbergh-Emory), Georgia.
Kansas City Light Rail                2,500,000  Bond
 Alternatives Analysis,
 Missouri.
Charlotte Rapid Transit               1,000,000  Burr
 Expansion Project, North
 Carolina.
Charlotte Rapid Transit               2,750,000  Dole
 Extension--Northeast Corridor
 Light Rail Project, North
 Carolina.
Southeastern Connecticut Bus          2,000,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Rapid Transit System (CT).
Downtown Transit Circulator,          1,000,000  Nelson, Bill/Martinez
 Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
CTA Circle Line, Illinois......       5,000,000  Durbin
METRA Connects, Illinois.......       3,750,000  Durbin/Obama
Northwest New Jersey/Northeast        2,000,000  Casey/Specter
 Pennsylvania Commuter Rail
 Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007......................................   $61,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.....................................    61,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................    65,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides financial assistance to support 
activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve 
public transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for 
transit, FTA assumes a leadership role in supporting research 
intended to identify different strategies to increase 
ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel 
consumption and air pollution, and enhance the quality of life 
in all communities.
    FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or 
other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national 
significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit 
agencies with research results to help make them better 
equipped to improve public transportation services and to help 
public transportation services meet national transportation 
needs at a minimum cost. FTA assists transit agencies to employ 
new service methods and technologies that improve their 
operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety 
and emergency preparedness.
    The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC] 
program is to foster a national resource and focal point for 
the support and conduct of research and training concerning the 
transportation of passengers and property. Funds provided under 
the FTA's UTC program are transferred to and managed by the 
Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined 
with a transfer of funds from the Federal Highway 
Administration.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $65,500,000 for research and 
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 
$4,500,000 more than the budget request, and $4,500,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends funds for the following:
  --Missouri Transportation Institute, Rolla Missouri, for 
        research on alternative sources of energy to power 
        transit vehicles (Requested by Senator Bond), 
        $2,000,000;
  --WVU Exhaust Emission Testing Initiative, West Virginia 
        (Requested by Senator Byrd), $1,000,000;
  --Prototype Vehicle Domestic Manufacturer to build a 
        prototype streetcar, Oregon (Requested by Senator 
        Wyden), $750,000; and
  --Staten Island Transit Enhancements Plan--Phase II, New York 
        (Requested by Senators Clinton and Schumer), $300,000.

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,566,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,399,818,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,566,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Capital Investment Grants account includes funding for 
two programs authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the 
United States Code: the New Starts program and the Small Starts 
program. Under New Starts, the FTA provides grants to fund the 
building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to 
existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include 
light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and busway/
high occupancy vehicle [HOV] facilities. In addition, 
significant corridor-based bus capital projects which either 
use an exclusive lane or which involve a substantial investment 
in a defined corridor (such as bus rapid transit) may also be 
eligible. Under Small Starts, the FTA provides grants for 
projects requesting less than $75,000,000 and with a total cost 
of less than $250,000,000.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee action recommends a level of $1,566,000,000. 
The recommended level is $166,182,000 more than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of 
capital investment grant funds in fiscal year 2007:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Committee
          Project name                       Funding category            recommendation        Requested by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Rapid Transit        Exempt...............................      $9,870,000  Martinez/Nelson, Bill
 System Phase 1, Florida.
CORRIDORone Regional Rail         Exempt...............................      11,200,000  Specter/Casey
 Project, PA.
South County Commuter Rail        Exempt...............................      18,965,043  Reed
 Wickford Junction Station, RI.
West Corridor Light Rail          Final Design.........................      70,000,000  Allard/Salazar/
 Project, CO.                                                                             President
Hartford-New Britain Busway, CT.  Final Design.........................       5,000,000  Dodd/Lieberman
MARC Commuter Rail Improvements   Final Design.........................      13,000,000  Cardin/Mikulski
 and Rolling Stock, MD.
Northstar Corridor Rail Project,  Final Design.........................      65,000,000  Coleman/Klobuchar
 MN.
Second Avenue Subway, NY........  Final Design.........................     125,000,000  Clinton/Schumer/
                                                                                          President
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA  Final Design.........................      20,000,000  Webb/Warner
Norfolk Light Rail Project, VA..  Final Design.........................      35,000,000  Webb/Warner
Seattle University Link           Final Design.........................      30,000,000  Murray/President
 Extension (Light Rail
 Extension), WA.
Central Phoenix/East Valley       Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      90,000,000  President
 Light Rail, AZ.
Metro Gold Line Eastside Light    Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      70,000,000  Boxer/President
 Rail Extension, CA.
Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal    Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      70,000,000  Allard/Salazar/
 Project (T-REX), CO.                                                                     President
CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, IL...  Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      36,500,000  Durbin/President
Largo Metrorail Extension, MD...  Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      35,000,000  Warner/Webb/President
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2,    Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      55,192,995  Lautenberg/Menendez/
 NJ.                                                                                      President
Long Island Rail Road East Side   Full Funding Grant Agreement.........     200,000,000  Clinton/Schumer/
 Access, NY.                                                                              President
South Corridor I 205/Portland     Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      80,000,000  Smith, G./Wyden/
 Mall Light Rail Project, OR.                                                             President
North Shore LRT Connector, PA...  Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      33,516,444  President
Dallas Area Rapid Transit         Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      86,250,000  Hutchison/Cornyn/
 Northwest/Southeast Light Rail                                                           President
 MOS, TX.
Weber County to Salt Lake City    Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      80,000,000  Bennett/Hatch/President
 Commuter Rail, UT.
Central Link Initial Segment, WA  Full Funding Grant Agreement.........      70,000,000  Murray/President
Central Corridor Light Rail       Preliminary Engineering..............      35,000,000  Coleman/Klobuchar
 Transit, MN.
North Corridor BRT, Houston and   Preliminary Engineering..............      15,000,000  Hutchison
 Southeast Corridor BRT, TX.
Mid-Jordan Light Rail Extension,  Preliminary Engineering..............      20,000,000  Bennett/Hatch
 UT.
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA  Preliminary Engineering..............      21,200,000  Warner/Webb
San Francisco Muni Third Street   Preliminary Enginnering..............      10,000,000  Feinstein
 Light Rail, CA.
South Sacramento Corridor Phase   Preliminary Enginnering..............       3,000,000  Feinstein/Boxer
 2 Light Rail Extension, CA.
Metrorail Orange Line Expansion,  Preliminary Enginnering..............         500,000  Nelson, Bill/Martinez
 Miami-Dade County, FL.
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit    Preliminary Enginnering..............      20,000,000  Inouye/Akaka
 Corridor Project, Hawaii.
CTA Circle Line, Illinois.......  Preliminary Enginnering..............       5,000,000  Durbin
METRA Connects, Illinois........  Preliminary Enginnering..............       1,300,000  Durbin
ARC/The Tunnel--NJ Trans-Hudson   Preliminary Enginnering..............      20,000,000  Lautenberg/Menendez
 Midtown Corridor, NJ.
VRE Rolling Stock, VA...........  Preliminary Enginnering..............       5,000,000  Webb
Troost Corridor BRT, MO.........  Small Starts.........................       6,260,000  Bond
Perris Valley Line Metrolink      Small Starts.........................       3,000,000  Feinstein
 Extension, CA.
Telegraph Avenue-International    Small Starts.........................       3,000,000  Feinstein
 Boulevard-East 14th Street Bus
 Rapid Transit Corridor
 Improvements, CA.
Planning and Design, Bus Rapid    Small Starts.........................       1,500,000  Brownback
 Transit--State Avenue Corridor,
 Wyandotte County, KS.
Commuter Rail Phase II,           Small Starts.........................       1,500,000  Bingaman/Domenici
 Bernalillo to Santa Fe, NMDOT,
 New Mexico.
Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter  Small Starts.........................       2,500,000  Reed
 Rail Station, RI.
Galveston Rail Trolley Extension  Small Starts.........................       2,000,000  Hutchison
 to Seawall Boulevard, TX.
Provo Orem Bus Rapid Transit,     Small Starts.........................       6,000,000  Bennett/Hatch
 Utah.
Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit,        Small Starts.........................       1,000,000  Warner/Webb
 Potomac Yard-Crystal City,
 Alexandria and Arlington, VA.
King County/Pacific Highway       Small Starts.........................      14,250,000  Murray/President
 South BRT, WA.
Denali Commission, AK...........  Statutory set-aside..................       5,000,000  .......................
Alaska and Hawaii Ferry Capital   Statutory set-aside..................      15,000,000  .......................
 Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seattle Light Rail Initial Segment and Extensions.--
Consistent with the existing full funding grant agreement, the 
bill includes $70,000,000 for the initial segment of the 
Seattle Link light rail system. The bill also includes 
$30,000,000 for the University Link extension that will shortly 
be entering a full funding grant agreement. It has always been 
the goal of regional transportation planners and the locally 
elected leadership that the initial segment of this light rail 
system should directly connect Seattle city center with SeaTac 
International Airport. However, due to rapid changes in 
security and infrastructure planning at the airport after the 
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Full Funding Grant 
Agreement [FFGA] for the initial segment could not include a 
direct connection into the airport. In order to rectify this 
situation and help provide for a seamless transit link directly 
to the airport, the bill includes a general provision (section 
164) intended to allow any Federal funds that may not be 
necessary due to budget ``under runs'' in the performance of 
the initial segment project to be used to assist in the 
construction of the airport link. This provision will, in 
effect, allow Sound Transit to benefit from its careful 
management of the initial segment project, allowing the agency 
to capture the Federal portion of any cost savings and use 
those savings to close a critically important gap in transit 
service in the region. Requested by Senator Murray.
    Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.--There have been 
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of 
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a 
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to 
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor. 
The availability of these particular funds is intended for one 
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The 
Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 
fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the following new starts 
projects:
    Alabama--Birmingham Transit Corridor
    Connecticut--Stamford, Connecticut, Urban Transitway and 
Intermodal Transportation Center Improvements
    Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements
    District of Columbia/Virginia--Dulles Corridor Rapid 
Transit Project
    Louisiana--Canal Streetcar Project
    Minnesota--Northstar Corridor Rail Project
    Pennsylvania--Harrisburg Corridor Rail MOS
    Pennsylvania--Schuylkill Valley Metro
    Texas--North Central Light Rail Extension; and
    Wisconsin--Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project.
    The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided 
in fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following new 
starts projects:
    Connecticut--Bridgeport Connecticut, Intermodal 
Transportation Center Project
    District of Columbia/Virginia--Dulles Corridor Rapid 
Transit Project
    Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements
    Delaware--Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor 
Project; and
    Wisconsin--Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project.
    Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.--The 
Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the 
fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign any 
FFGAs that have a maximum Federal share of higher than 60 
percent.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    Section 160 exempts limitations previously made available 
on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338.
    Section 161 allows funds under this act, Federal Transit 
Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by 
September 30, 2008 to be made available for other projects 
under 40 U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 
2005, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred.
    Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new projects under 
Federal Transit Authority to be used during this fiscal year to 
satisfy expenses incurred for such projects.
    Section 164 amends the Central Link Initial Segment 
Project, as previously stated in the report.
    Section 165 makes funds provided in previous appropriations 
acts for a fixed guideway light rail project in Albuquerque, 
New Mexico available for buses and bus facilities.
    Section 166 makes funds provided in a previous 
appropriations act for Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, 
New Mexico available for buses, equipment and facilities.
    Section 167 makes funds previously provided for the Las 
Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project and other new 
start projects available for bus and bus facilities under the 
control of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 
Nevada.
    Section 168 repeals a provision in a prior appropriations 
act related to subway tunneling in Los Angeles, California. 
Requested by Senator Feinstein.

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 
is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The 
SLSDC is a vital transportation corridor for the international 
movement of bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and 
coal, serving the North American region that makes up one-
quarter of the United States population and nearly one-half of 
the Canadian population. The SLSDC is responsible for the 
operation, maintenance, and development of the United States 
portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake 
Erie.

                       OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $16,223,160
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      17,392,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,392,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 
maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the 
Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the 
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is 
responsible.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation includes $17,392,000 for the 
Operations and Maintenance of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. This 
amount is $371,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level and the 
same as the budget request. The recommended level is sufficient 
to allow the Seaway to continue its operational and maintenance 
programs for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 
order to sustain its high level of system availability. This 
amount also includes funding for concrete replacement at the 
U.S. locks and dredging in the U.S. portion of the Seaway as 
requested.

                        Maritime Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for 
programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as 
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also 
responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime 
industry in support of the Nation's security and economic 
needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD's use of ports and intermodal 
facilities during DOD mobilizations to guarantee the smooth 
flow of military cargo through commercial ports. MARAD manages 
the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift 
Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD 
access to commercial and strategic sealift and associated 
intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues to address the 
disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense Reserve 
Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. Further, 
MARAD administers education and training programs through the 
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools 
that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who 
are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation 
needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of 
the United States as a maritime Nation.

                       MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $154,440,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     154,440,000
Committee recommendation................................     156,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Maritime Security Program provides resources to 
maintain a U.S. flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to 
serve both the commercial and national security needs of the 
United States. The program provides direct payments to U.S. 
flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. 
Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in 
active commercial service and are required to provide 
intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in 
times of war or national emergency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $156,000,000 
for the Maritime Security Program. This amount is $1,560,000 
more than both the fiscal year 2007 and the budget request. 
This level is consistent with the program's authorized level.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $111,522,274
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     115,276,000
Committee recommendation................................     122,890,545

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds 
the salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional 
staff in the administration and direction for all MARAD 
programs. The account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant 
Marine Academy, six State maritime schools, port and intermodal 
development, cargo preference, international trade relations, 
deep-water port licensing, and administrative support costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$122,890,000 for Operations and Training at the Maritime 
Administration for fiscal year 2008. This amount is $11,368,271 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level and $7,614,545 more than 
the budget request. Funding for the subaccounts within the 
``operations and training'' account are provided as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Request         Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
    Salary & Benefits.............        $24,720,000        $24,720,000
    Midshipmen Program............          6,977,000          6,977,000
    Instructional Program.........          5,689,000          5,689,000
    Program, Direction and Admin..          2,915,000          2,915,000
    Maintenance, Repair and                 7,307,000          7,307,000
     Operations...................
    Capital Improvements..........         13,850,000         13,850,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, USMMA.............         61,458,000         61,458,000
                                   =====================================
State Maritime Schools:
    Direct Schoolship Payments....          1,881,000          1,881,000
    Student Incentive Payments....  .................            800,000
    Schoolship Maintenance &                8,119,000         10,500,000
     Repair.......................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, State Maritime             10,000,000         13,181,000
       Schools....................
                                   =====================================
MARAD Operations:
    Ports & MTS Improvement.......          3,111,000          7,111,000
    Capital Construction Fund                 606,000            606,000
     Management...................
    International Activities......            848,000            848,000
    Deepwater Port Licensing......          1,068,000          1,327,545
    Cargo Preference Management...          3,787,000          3,787,000
    Mobile Source Emissions.......            737,000            737,000
    MSP Administration............            688,000            688,000
     VISA/Vessel Transfer.........          2,143,000          2,143,000
    Mariner Training & Education              825,000            900,000
     Management...................
    Strategic Ports/National                1,221,000          1,320,000
     Security Planning............
    War Risk Insurance............            889,000            889,000
    Organizational Excellence.....          1,438,000          1,438,000
    Administrative Support........         26,457,000         26,457,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, MARAD Operations..         43,818,000         48,251,545
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total MARAD Operations and          115,276,000        122,890,545
       Training...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is dismayed by the actions of the Maritime 
Administration in moving forward with a reorganization of the 
agency without appropriate notification to the Committee. The 
Committee appropriates funding based on the information 
contained in the President's budget request. Therefore the 
Committee requires notification if funding is going to be 
allocated in a manner that differs from the information that 
has been provided as part of an agency's budget request. The 
Committee reminds the agency of this requirement, and expects 
that the agency will meet this requirement should there be any 
deviations from the President's 2008 budget request in the 
coming year.
    U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.--The U.S. Merchant Marine 
Academy developed a Master plan to address and correct 
deficiencies at Academy facilities. The $13,850,000 provided is 
slightly more than the amount called for in the Master Plan. As 
part of the 2009 budget submission, the Committee directs MARAD 
to include detailed information on the construction planned 
with the funding provided.
    State Maritime Academies.--The Committee has recommended an 
appropriation of $13,818,000 for the State Maritime Academies. 
The amount provided represents an increase of $3,818,000 over 
the budget request. The Committee supports efforts to offer 
incentives for students to attend the Maritime Academies, and 
has therefore rejected the President's proposal to eliminate 
the Student Incentive Payment scholarship. The amount provided 
is sufficient to maintain the same number of enrollees in the 
program. The Committee has also included an increase in 
Schoolship Maintenance and Repair funding. The Committee 
believes that it is critical that the ships used at the 
academies are in the best possible condition in order to 
appropriately educate the mariners attending the State schools.
    MARAD Operations.--The Committee has made adjustments to 
several MARAD programs in order to support important 
initiatives of the agency. The Committee has increased 
Deepwater Port licensing activities by $259,545. The agency is 
responsible for issuing licenses for the operation of offshore 
oil and natural gas receiving facilities. The Committee 
supports the agency's efforts to encourage the utilization of 
U.S. crews onboard liquefied natural gas vessels. The Committee 
has also increased funding for Mariner Training and Education 
Management by $75,000 and Strategic Ports/National Security 
Planning by $99,000.
    Marine Transportation System.--The Maritime Administration 
is the single source for all Marine Transportation System [MTS] 
information. The information advocate is a comprehensive 
database of information to assist in reducing intermodal 
congestion and to increase transportation efficiency. The 
Committee has provided an additional $4,000,000 for the 
Maritime Administration to advance their existing Information 
Framework, expand their mission of information advocacy for all 
MTS information and assure critical marine information is 
captured, managed, protected and available to all authorized 
agencies. Requested by Senator Cochran.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $20,790,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of 
obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime 
Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of 
2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 115 ships 
awaiting disposal. Many of these vessels are some 50 years old 
or more and pose a significant environmental threat due to the 
presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid and 
liquid polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,000,000 
for ship disposal. This amount is $2,790,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2007 level and $2,000,000 less than the budget 
request. The Committee has decreased funding in the program due 
to a large amount of carryover funding, which can help support 
the program's activities in 2008.

                     ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2007....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     $20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    As authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Assistance to Small 
Shipyards program provides assistance in the form of grants, 
loans and loan guarantees to small shipyards for capital 
improvements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending an appropriation of 
$20,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards and maritime 
communities. No funding was requested for this program in the 
President's budget. This program was authorized in 2006, but 
funding has never been provided to the program. The Committee 
believes that this program is important to maritime communities 
and shipyards and will improve the ability of domestic 
shipyards to compete for domestic and international commercial 
ship construction.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $4,085,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      13,408,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Program, established pursuant to title XI of the 
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, provides for a full 
faith and credit guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt 
obligations issued by (1) U.S. or foreign shipowners for the 
purpose of financing or refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or 
eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or 
reconditioned in U.S. shipyards and (2) U.S. shipyards for the 
purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology and 
modern shipbuilding technology (Technology) of a privately 
owned general shipyard facility located in the United States. 
The Program is administered by the Secretary of Transportation 
acting by and through the Maritime Administrator. Under the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the 
estimated costs of a project must be obtained prior to the 
issuance of any approvals for title XI financing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$13,408,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. 
Of the amount provided, $3,408,000 is for administrative 
expenses necessary to carry out the program. The Committee 
notes that $5,000,000 was included in fiscal year 2006 for 
Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. In combining the 
funding provided in both years, an appropriated level of 
$15,000,000 will provide for a total loan volume of over 
$250,000,000. The Committee expects that MARAD will move 
forward expeditiously in approving loan guarantees that are 
critical to our Nation's shipbuilding industry.
    The Committee has also included language that requires the 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General [IG] to 
certify to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
that MARAD is in compliance with the recommendations contained 
in the IG's audit reports on the title XI program.

                           SHIP CONSTRUCTION

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007....................................     -$2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      -4,614,545

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Ship Construction account, which hasn't been funded 
since 1981, provided construction cost subsidies for vessels 
built to operate in U.S. foreign trade. This program was 
designed to offset the higher cost of constructing ships in the 
U.S. versus overseas.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has recommended a rescission of all 
unobligated balances under this heading.

           ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to 
furnish utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, 
contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the 
control of MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this 
provision shall be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous 
receipts.
    Section 171 prohibits obligations incurred during the 
current year from construction funds in excess of the 
appropriations and limitations contained in this act or in any 
prior appropriation act.

         Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 
[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 
November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 
and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-246). The 
PHMSA is responsible for the Department's pipeline safety 
program as well as oversight of hazardous materials 
transportation safety operations. The administration also is 
dedicated to safety, including the elimination of 
transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with 
hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by 
promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and 
protect the environment.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $18,031,209
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      18,130,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,130,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds program support costs for the PHMSA, 
including policy development, civil rights, management, 
administration and agency-wide expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $18,130,000 for this account, of 
which $639,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 
This funding is the same as the budget request and $98,791 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee expects PHMSA to 
use these funds as reflected in its budget justification.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $26,722,887
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      27,003,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,003,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily 
shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA 
uses risk management principles and security threat assessments 
to fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous 
materials transportation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $27,003,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, of which $1,761,000 shall remain available 
until September 30, 2009. These funds are the same as the 
budget request and $280,113 more than the fiscal year 2007 
funding level.
    Hazmat Intermodal Portal.--Within the funds provided, the 
Committee has included $1,100,000 for the Hazmat Intermodal 
Portal, as requested. An additional $400,000 is provided for 
this activity under the Office of Pipeline Safety. The 
Committee supports the Department's effort to consolidate 
hazmat data among the various DOT modes that are responsible 
for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials. This 
tool should allow the Department to more effectively monitor 
the shipment of hazardous materials.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $74,915,297
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      74,580,000
Committee recommendation................................      82,404,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote 
the safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of 
natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipelines.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,404,000 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. This amount is $7,488,703 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level and $7,824,000 more than 
the budget request. Of the funding provided, $18,810,000 shall 
be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
$63,594,000 shall be from the Pipeline Safety Fund. Funding 
adjustments have been made to the following activities within 
the budget: inspector and enforcement staffing, research and 
development programs, and Oil Pollution Act implementation 
activities.
    Inspection and Enforcement Staffing.--The Pipeline 
Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 was 
signed into law in December 2006. This law called for an 
increased inspection and enforcement workforce for the Office 
of Pipeline Safety. The Committee believes that these personnel 
are essential to preventing pipeline accidents and ensuring the 
integrity of the Nation's pipeline system. The Committee has 
therefore included $33,003,000 to accommodate a total level of 
111 inspection and enforcement FTEs as authorized, this 
represents 12 FTE more than the FTE level requested in the 
budget.
    Research and Development.--The Committee has rejected the 
proposed reduction to the research and development program 
within the Office of Pipeline Safety, and has funded the 
program at $10,000,000. This amount is $907,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level and $6,250,000 more than the budget 
request. The Committee has provided funding for the following 
activities within the research and development program:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping and Information Systems.........................      $1,265,000
Enhanced Operations, Control and Monitoring.............       2,000,000
Damage Prevention and Leak Detection....................       4,600,000
Improved Materials Performance..........................       2,135,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In-line inspection devices that are able to detect defects 
in underground pipelines, known as ``smart pigs'', have proven 
valuable in identifying potentially dangerous flaws in the 
Nation's pipelines. However, in a September 2006 report 
evaluating threats to hazardous liquid pipelines, the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General stated the need 
for PHMSA to continue research and development activities to 
address limitations to the current smart pig technology. The 
Committee also believes that PHMSA should focus attention on 
developing technologies that can address the challenges with 
inspecting natural gas transmission and gathering pipelines, 
such as the fact that many too small to accommodate current 
pigging technologies. As such, the Committee has provided 
$4,600,000 for research and development related to damage 
prevention and leak detection technologies to advance research 
in these areas.
    Oil Pollution Act Activities.--The Committee has 
recommended increased levels requested in the fiscal year 2008 
budget by $338,000. The Committee expects this funding to be 
used to continue activities related to field exercises to 
prepare and strengthen operator readiness to respond to oil 
spills from pipelines, and assess and remediate any conditions 
which may have led to spills.
    Grants to States.--The Committee has included the 
recommended funding of $22,967,000 for the Office of Pipeline 
Safety's grants programs. This amount includes an increase of 
$1,000,000 to the State Pipeline Safety grants, which supports 
the increased inspection responsibilities of State pipeline 
agencies, such as new natural gas integrity management 
requirements. The funding recommended includes $1,043,000 for 
State one-call grants and $1,515,000 is for the new State 
damage prevention grant program. These two grant programs are 
both aimed at preventing damage to underground pipelines. The 
Committee has also included funding for the new technology 
grant program at $500,000, as requested.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $14,157,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      28,318,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,318,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,506,000 for this activity, of 
which $188,000 shall be for activities related to emergency 
response training curriculum development and updates, as 
authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee 
includes an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the 
emergency preparedness grant program.
    The recommended level for emergency preparedness grants 
support training of first responders and planning for 
communities to allow them to appropriately respond to hazardous 
materials incidents. This amount also supports the development 
and publication of the Emergency Response Guidebook, as well 
as, training and curriculum development for public sector 
emergency response and preparedness teams.

           Research and Innovative Technology Administration


                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $7,736,103
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Research and Innovative Technology Administration 
[RITA] was established in the Department of Transportation, 
effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta 
Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-
246). The mission of RITA is to focus the Department's multi-
modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the 
multifaceted research agenda of the Department.
    RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the 
Volpe National Transportation Center and the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an 
allocation from the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-
aid highway account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,000,000 
for Research and Innovative Technologies Administration for 
fiscal year 2008. The amount provided is $4,263,897 more then 
the fiscal year 2007 level and equal to the budget request. The 
Committee has included funding to support the maintenance and 
operation of the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning 
System [NDGPS] system as requested. Funding for NDGPS will also 
support a systems analysis and assessment of current and 
potential future NDGPS requirements for transportation and 
other applications.
    The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the 
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Administrative Expenses....................      $5,964,000
Hydrogen Fuels Safety Research and Development..........         500,000
RD&T Coordination.......................................         536,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System              5,000,000
 [NDGPS]................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RITA has the mission of coordinating, facilitating and 
reviewing research development and technology activities at the 
Department of Transportation [DOT]. RITA has an important role 
to play in advancing transportation technologies that improve 
the mobility, safety and efficiency of the Nation's 
transportation system. By coordinating research among various 
DOT modes, RITA should be able to reduce duplicative research 
and advance innovative technologies that support the goals of 
the Department. In August 2006, the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] released a report requested by the Committee that 
identified some opportunities for RITA to improve its 
coordination and oversight of DOT research programs. The 
Committee continues to believe that RITA must strengthen its 
role in coordinating research activities among the various DOT 
modes. The Committee looks forward to GAO's follow-up on its 
audit, which should assess RITA's response to its 
recommendations, including how RITA is working with DOT 
operating administrations to develop and implement strategies, 
performance goals, and performance measures that ensure 
coordinated research that will advance the Department's goals.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics


                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2007.........................     $27,561,537
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by 
an allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-
aid highways. The Bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes 
accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems; 
collects information on intermodal transportation and other 
areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of 
the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation 
through research, the development of guidelines, and the 
promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway 
Administration, the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS.
    The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTEs in fiscal year 
2008 in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing 
that occurred previously within this agency.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $64,043,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      66,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective 
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise 
audits and investigations relating to the programs and 
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and 
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and 
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; 
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep 
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding 
problems and deficiencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $66,400,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is 
$357,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.
    In addition, the OIG will receive $6,874,000 from other 
agencies in this bill for audit and investigation activities 
within that agency, as noted below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in fiscal year 2008, for a decrease of 10 FTEs from 
the fiscal year 2007 level.
    Audit Reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee has included a provision in section 407 that 
requires all departments and agencies in this act to report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole 
source contracts, including the contractor, the amount of the 
contract, and the rationale for a sole-source procurement as 
opposed to a market-based procurement. The Committee directs 
the IG to assess any conflicts of interest with regard to these 
contracts and DOT.
    Unfair Business Practices.--The bill maintains language 
which authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud 
and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Crediting
                                         Appropriation      offsetting
                                                           collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..................      $26,313,000      $25,063,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................       23,085,000       21,835,000
Committee recommendation..............       25,000,000       23,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on 
January 1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
Termination Act of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104-88). The Board 
is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent 
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is 
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline 
industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor 
carriers and water carriers.
    STB's rail oversight activities encompass rate 
reasonableness, car service and interchange, mergers, line 
acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB's 
jurisdiction also includes certain oversight of the intercity 
bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate regulation involving 
noncontiguous domestic water transportation, household goods 
carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier rates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$25,000,000. This funding level is $1,915,000 more than the 
budget request and $1,313,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. 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.
    User Fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. 
Language is included in the bill allowing fees to be credited 
to the appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees 
are received and credited. The Committee continues this 
language to simplify the tracking of the collections and 
provide the Board with more flexibility in spending its 
appropriated funds.

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

    Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of 
aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or 
allowances, as authorized by law.
    Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized 
by 5 U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level 
IV.
    Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 110 political and presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation.
    Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of 
section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
    Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in 
this act to release personal information, including a Social 
Security number, medical or disability information, and 
photographs from a driver's license or motor vehicle record 
without express consent of the person to whom such information 
pertains; and prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from 
withholding funds provided in this act for any grantee if a 
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
    Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal 
Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, 
other public authorities, and private sources for expenses 
incurred for training may be credited to each agency's 
respective accounts.
    Section 186 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase 
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 187 prohibits funds in this act to make a grant 
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations at least 3 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 administration.
    Section 188 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, 
minor fees and other funds received by the Department of 
Transportation from travel management center, charge card 
programs, subleasing of building space and miscellaneous 
sources are to be credited to appropriations of the Department 
of Transportation.
    Section 189 requires amounts from improper payments to a 
third party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the 
Department of Transportation be available to cover expenses 
incurred in recovery of such payments.
    Section 190 establishes requirements for reprogramming 
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 191 eliminates certain solid waste processing 
entities from the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation 
Board.
    Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 
charging filing fees for rate complaints that are greater than 
the fees authorized for district court civil suits.
    Section 193 requires an investigation by the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General on rail service disruptions.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007.................................... $34,989,245,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  33,675,018,000
Committee recommendation................................  36,167,029,000

                          program description

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned 
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities, 
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
    In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and 
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who 
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan 
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and 
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and 
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who 
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat 
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair 
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate 
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood 
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of 
our urban centers from blight and decay.
    HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the 
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate 
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but 
better communities and living environments.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2008 an 
appropriation of $36,167,029,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is $1,177,784,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $2,492,011,000 more then the 
budget request.

                        Office of the Secretary


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$3,820,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\3,930,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,930,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The responsibilities of the Department are administered 
under the supervision and direction of the Secretary, who is 
responsible for the administration of all programs, functions 
and authorities of the Department. The Deputy Secretary assists 
the Secretary in the discharge of the duties and 
responsibilities, and serves as Acting Secretary in the absence 
of the Secretary. In addition to the Office of the Secretary 
and Deputy Secretary, activities include four offices of highly 
specialized staff with Department-wide responsibility for the 
following functions: participation of small and disadvantaged 
businesses in the contracting activities of the Department; 
Public Affairs; Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations; 
and Administrative Judicial proceedings.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,930,000 for 
the Office of the Secretary. This level is the same as the 
budget request and $110,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
level.

                          Executive Operations


                     OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,340,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,490,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,490,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Hearings and Appeals is an independent 
adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary whose 
administrative judges conduct hearings and make determinations 
for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] 
in accordance with existing statues and departmental policies, 
regulations, and procedures. The Office of Hearings and Appeals 
is headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary who 
supervises the administrative judges, administrative law judges 
of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and support staff.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for 
the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This level is the same as 
the budget request and $150,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
level.

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     \1\$670,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      \1\510,000
Committee recommendation................................         510,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
is responsible for the implementation and execution of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] activities on 
behalf of small businesses, minority businesses, businesses 
owned and controlled by disadvantaged persons, and firms, in 
accordance with sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act 
[SBA], as amended. The Office has functional direction and 
oversight of Department of Housing and Urban Development 
personnel to the extent that the functions and duties of such 
personnel relate to sections 8 and 15 of the SBA. For the 
functions and responsibilities required by Public Law 95-507, 
the Director shall be responsible only to, and report directly 
to, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $510,000 for 
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 
This level is the same as the budget request and $160,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$39,710,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\43,750,000
Committee recommendation................................      43,750,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO] provides 
leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal 
responsibility and accountability. The CFO reports directly to 
and advises the Secretary of the Department on all aspects of 
financial management, accounting and budgetary matters; ensures 
that the Department establishes and meets financial management 
goals and objectives; that the Department is in compliance with 
financial management legislation and directives; analyzes 
budgetary implications of policy and legislative proposals and 
provides technical oversight with respect to all budget 
activities throughout the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,750,000 
for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This level is 
the same as the budget request and $4,040,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level.

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$82,900,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\86,820,000
Committee recommendation................................      86,820,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal 
voice of the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary 
and other principal staff of the Department. It is the 
responsibility of the General Counsel to provide legal 
opinions, advice and services with respect to all programs and 
activities, and to provide counsel and assistance in the 
development of the Department's programs and policies. Through 
the Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC], the General Counsel 
focuses on and resolves the Department's most difficult housing 
cases by taking aggressive action against those that are in 
serious non-compliance with regulatory and business agreement 
requirements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,820,000 
for the Office of the General Counsel. This level is the same 
as the budget request and $3,920,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\13,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,500,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer [OCPO]'s 
mission is to provide high-quality acquisition support services 
to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational 
and mission-related goods and services; provide advice, 
guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices 
on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in 
defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and 
maintain all procurement guidance including regulations, 
policies, and procedures; and assist in the development of 
sound acquisition strategies

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000 
for the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. This level is 
the same as the budget request and $1,500,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level.

                   CENTER FOR FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,480,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,860,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,860,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    HUD's Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives 
conducts outreach, recommends changes to HUD polices and 
programs that present barriers to grassroots organizations, and 
initiates special projects, such as grant writing training.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,860,000 for 
the Center for Faith-Based Initiatives. This level is the same 
as the budget request and $380,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level.

        OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND 
                       INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$2,330,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\2,670,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,670,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Relations is the principal advisor to the 
Secretary, Deputy Secretary and senior staff with respect to 
legislative affairs, congressional relations, and policy 
matters affecting Federal, State, and local governments, and 
public and private interest groups.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,670,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Relations. This level is the same as the 
budget request and $340,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
level.

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$2,140,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\2,630,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,630,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    HUD's Office of Public Affairs [OPA] educates the American 
public on the Department's mission to increase homeownership, 
support community development and increase access to affordable 
housing free from discrimination. By pursuing media outreach, 
OPA works to ensure homeowners, renters, and those living in 
subsidized housing hear directly from key officials about the 
Department's latest initiatives and goals. Using communications 
tools such as press releases, press conferences, the Internet, 
media interviews and community outreach, OPA provides Americans 
with information about housing policies and programs that are 
important to them.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,630,000 for 
the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. This level is the 
same as the budget request and $490,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 level.

          OFFICE OF DEPARTMENTAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$3,070,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\3,440,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,440,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The mission of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Departmental Equal Employment 
Opportunity is to ensure the enforcement of Federal laws 
relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in 
the Department's employment practices. The mission of the 
Office is carried out through the functions of three Divisions, 
the Affirmative Employment Division, the Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Division.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,440,000 for 
the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $370,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2007 level.

                             Administration


          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,430,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,480,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,480,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible 
for the development and implementation of policies, standards, 
procedures, systems and materials related to the resource and 
administrative management of the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,480,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $50,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2007 level.

                  ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007.................................... \1\$238,410,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  \1\252,010,000
Committee recommendation................................     252,010,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Administration provides general support 
services to all offices and divisions throughout HUD. These 
services include: management analysis, human resource 
management, employee training, performance analysis; providing 
general building and office services, maintaining 
correspondence and scheduling for the Secretary; as well as 
carrying out special activities directly assigned by the 
Secretary of HUD.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $252,010,000 
for the Office of Administration. This level is the same as the 
budget request and $13,600,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
level.

           OFFICE OF DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS AND COORDINATION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$11,990,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\12,520,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,520,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination 
[ODOC] perform a broad range of cross-program functions that 
assist the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary with HUD's 
continuing management improvement initiatives. Key 
responsibilities include leading the development and monitoring 
of the Department's Management and Strategic Plans; overseeing 
HUD's planning and accountability processes to ensure that the 
Department achieves its goals and quality improvement 
objectives; managing the Department's Compliance and Monitoring 
Program; managing the Department's Internet, Intranet, and 
other public access technology; managing HUD's oversight and 
monitoring of labor standards for HUD-funded construction 
projects; and coordinating Executive Management and Field 
Office Management Meetings for the Deputy Secretary.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,520,000 
for the Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination. 
This level is the same as the budget request and $530,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                 OFFICE OF FIELD POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$52,020,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\47,730,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,730,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Field Policy and Management serves as the 
principal advisor of providing oversight and communicate 
Secretarial priorities and policies to the field office staff 
and clients. The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the 
operational managers in each of the field offices. The Regional 
and Field Office Directors direct and coordinate cross program 
delivery of the Department's programs in the field. Activities 
in the field includes conducting marketing and outreach 
activities, upholding customer service standards, providing 
cross program coordination, and serving as point of contact 
with the media, website management, general public and elected 
officials.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,730,000 
for the Office of Field Policy and Management. This level is 
the same as the budget request and $4,290,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2007 level.

                       Public and Indian Housing


    OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,450,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,620,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,620,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing [PIH] is responsible for the management, direction and 
oversight of promoting affordable housing opportunities for 
low-income families as they transition to self-sufficiency and 
homeownership. The key tasks in achieving the mission include 
the review and oversight of policy and procedures as well as 
implementing special projects. In efforts to review and oversee 
policy and procedure implementation, the Office coordinates PIH 
work with offices within the Department, OMB, Congress, and 
other Federal, State, and local agencies and officials. This 
office also administers and coordinates operations of PIH 
offices while providing technical assistance and guidance for 
policy and procedures.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,620,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing. This level is the same as the budget request and 
$170,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                  OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007.................................... \1\$176,060,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  \1\188,340,000
Committee recommendation................................     188,340,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Public and Indian Housing oversees the 
administration of HUD's Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher, 
Section 8 Rental Assistance and Native American Programs. PIH 
is responsible for administering and managing programs 
authorized and funded by Congress under the basic provisions of 
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $188,340,000 
for the Office of Public and Indian Housing. This level is the 
same as the budget request and $12,280,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 level.

                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

             (INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007\1\................................. $15,920,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008\1\................................  16,000,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................  16,598,694,000

\1\Include an advance appropriation of roughly $4,200,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-
based (voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing 
assistance is one of the principle appropriations for Federal 
housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to 
over 2 million families. Further, it funds incremental vouchers 
to assist non-elderly disabled families, to provide vouchers 
for tenants that live in projects where the owner of the 
project has decided to leave the section 8 program, or for 
replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory 
(tenant protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs, 
eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted 
income for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for 
the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some 
other payment standard. This account also provides funding for 
the Contract Administrator program, Family Self-Sufficiency 
[FSS] and the Family Unification program. Under FSS, families 
receive job training and employment that should lead to a 
decrease in their dependency on welfare programs and move 
towards economic self-sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$16,598,694,000 for fiscal year 2008; including $4,200,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2008. This amount is $605,694,000 more than the budget request 
and $671,694,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.
    The Committee recommends $14,936,000,000 for the renewal 
costs for section 8 contracts which is $491,694,000 more than 
the budget request and $493,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. The Committee notes that the budget request 
provides only $8,306,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level 
for all the renewal costs associated with almost 2 million 
vouchers. The administration budget would force Public Housing 
Authorities [PHAs] to cover all inflationary costs associated 
with rent increases as well as absorb the cost of tenant 
protection vouchers that were added to their authorized lease 
levels. The vast majority of PHAs do not have sufficient 
resources to meet this unfunded responsibility and the result 
would be the possible displacement of vulnerable low-income 
residents. Adequate funding has been provided for inflationary 
costs, incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled 
families, vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the 
owner of the project has decided to opt-out of the section 8 
project-based program, or for the replacement of other units 
lost from the assisted housing inventory. This appropriation 
will ensure that PHAs have sufficient funding to renew 
approximately 2 million existing contracts and prevent the 
displacement of any current tenants.
    The Committee continues the section 8 renewal formula 
established in fiscal year 2007. This formula is based on data 
derived through the voucher management system [VMS] on the most 
recently completed 12 consecutive month period that reflects 
the actual costs off all vouchers under lease. This formula 
provides an efficient method to capture actual costs incurred 
by PHAs including variations in the rental markets. The 
Committee continues to exempt specific categories of public 
housing authorities from the new 12-month formula; namely (1) 
agencies impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that can 
demonstrate use of such funds within 12 months; (2) agencies 
that are under receivership within 24 months of enactment of 
this act and can demonstrate use of such funds within 12 
months; and (3) agencies that spent more than the total of 
their allocated funds for 2006 and 2007.
    The Committee provides a set-aside of $100,000,000 to 
adjust PHA's allocations to include (1) PHAs that were unfairly 
disadvantaged from excessive costs due to portability; and (2) 
PHAs that increased their utilization rate using available 
reserves.
    Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommends 
$150,000,000 for tenant protection assistance. This is the same 
as the budget request and $700,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. The Committee rejects the administrative efforts to 
limit tenant protection vouchers only to units under lease at 
the time of conversion. Rather, the Committee has included 
statutory language requiring the Secretary to provide 
replacement vouchers for all units that cease to be available 
as assisted housing due to demolition, disposition, or 
conversion, subject to the available of funds. This statutory 
change will prevent the loss of critical housing assistance in 
communities around the Nation.
    Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators.--The Committee 
recommends $50,000,000 for family self-sufficiency 
coordinators. This is $2,500,000 more than the budget request 
and $2,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. These 
funds are designed to promote self-sufficiency by developing 
local strategies to coordinate public and private resources 
that help voucher participants and public housing tenants 
obtain employment to achieve economic independence.
    Family Unification Program.--The Committee recommends 
$30,000,000 for the Family Unification program. The 
administration did not request funding for this program. This 
program provides vouchers for families for whom the lack of 
adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation, or the 
threat of imminent separation, of children from their families. 
This program also provides vouchers to youths 18 to 21 years 
old who left foster care at age 16 or older and lack adequate 
housing.
    Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program.--The Committee 
recommends $75,000,000 for the Veterans Affairs Supported 
Housing program. The administration did not request funding for 
this program. According to a recent HUD report submitted to 
Congress, homeless veterans make up approximately 18.7 percent 
of all homeless adults who accessed an emergency shelter or 
transitional housing. This program provides section 8 vouchers 
for homeless veterans. This program is a supported jointly by 
the HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. The VA 
provides ongoing treatment services to veterans that are 
homeless, mentally ill and suffer from substance abuse 
disorders. The VA screens homeless veterans for program 
eligibility and provides case management services to the 
enrollees. HUD provides the rental assistance subsidy through 
PHAs utilizing the section 8 voucher program. The Secretary of 
HUD, in consultation with the Secretary of VA, may waive 
certain HUD requirements necessary for the effective delivery 
and administration of such voucher assistance. The Committee 
notes that funding should be sufficient to provide assistance 
for over 7,500 homeless veterans.
    Administrative Fees.--The Committee recommends 
$1,351,000,000 for administrative fees for PHAs. This is equal 
to the budget request and $69,900,000 more than the comparable 
funding level for fiscal year 2007. These funds are to be 
allocated on a formula tied to units under lease. These funds 
pay for the administrative functions for the section 8 voucher 
program.
    Working Capital Transfer.--The Committee includes language 
allowing up to $6,494,000 to be transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund. This is the same as the budget request and 
$594,000 more than fiscal year 2007 level. The Working Capital 
Fund is needed for HUD to complete an effective IT system to 
track HUD funding.
    Semiannual Reports.--The Committee requests the Secretary 
to continue to submit the semi-annual on the effectiveness of 
the budget-based approach to vouchers as first mandated in 
Senate Report 109-109.
    Report on Certain Special Purpose Vouchers.--Within 120 
days after enactment of this act, the Secretary shall provide 
to the Committees on Appropriations a report stating the total 
amount of budget authority and number of vouchers provided each 
year from 2001 through fiscal year 2007 to public housing 
agencies for the first time renewal of each category of tenant 
protection vouchers, including HOPE VI vouchers and relocation 
vouchers necessitated by mandatory and voluntary conversions, 
demolitions, and disposition of public housing developments.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007.................................... -$1,650,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  -1,300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  -1,100,000,000

    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 $1,100,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2008. This amount is $200,000,000 less than the 
budget request and $550,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 
level. The administration has been unable to provide the 
Committee information indicating that a rescission of a full 
$1,300,000,000 is achievable in fiscal year 2008 without doing 
harm to other HUD programs. If the HUD Secretary is unable to 
recapture unused section 8 balances of this volume, a 
rescission of the size requested by the President could result 
in funds being rescinded from critical programs such as 
Homeless Assistance, HOME, HOPE VI, Section 202 Housing for the 
Elderly and Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities. 
Reducing balances from these accounts will cause great harm to 
some of the most vulnerable low-income populations in the 
Nation.

                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $5,976,417,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   5,813,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,813,000,000

                          PROJECT DESCRIPTION

    Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental 
subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific 
housing unit as opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient 
to seek a unit, subject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts 
in this account include funding for the renewal of expiring 8 
project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate 
rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This 
account also provides funds for contract administrators.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$5,813,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based 
contracts, of which up to $286,230,000 is for the cost of 
contract administrators and up to $3,960,000 may be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund. This funding is equal to the 
budget request and $163,417,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 
level.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $2,438,964,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   2,024,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,500,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for modernization and capital 
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities), including management improvements, resident 
relocation and homeownership activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,500,000,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $476,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $61,036,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 level.
    Of the amount made available under this section, 
$40,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing and up to $8,820,000 is made available to pay the costs 
of administrative and judicial receiverships. The Committee 
includes language allowing up to $16,847,000 to be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund. The Committee recommends 
$14,890,000, equal to the budget request, for technical 
assistance activities.
    The Committee provides an adequate increase in funding for 
capital needs in order to maintain the public housing portfolio 
which is necessary to preserve affordable, safe and sanitary 
housing for low-income residents. The Committee directs HUD to 
perform a new Capital Needs Assessment [CNA] for the entire 
public housing portfolio including the projected annual cost to 
adequately maintain that portfolio and submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 30, 2008. 
It has been several years since the last CNA was performed and 
the Committee believes that this information must be updated.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $20,000,000 for 
emergency capital needs.
    The Committee recommends up to $15,345,000, equal to the 
budget request, to support the ongoing financial and physical 
assessment activities at the Real Estate Assessment Center 
[REAC].

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $3,864,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   4,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,200,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the payment of operating 
subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities 
(except Indian housing authorities) with a total of 
approximately 1.2 million units under management in order to 
augment rent payments by residents in order to provide 
sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,200,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $200,000,000 
more than the budget request and $336,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee has provided additional 
funds to offset rising utility costs and increased requirements 
placed on PHAs.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriation bill that prohibits the use of 
operating funds to pay for the operating expenses for a prior 
year.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $99,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing'' [HOPE VI] account makes awards to public housing 
authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or 
failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites 
upon which these developments exist. This is a focused effort 
to eliminate public housing which was, in many cases, poorly 
located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such 
unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and 
difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account. This amount is $1,000,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level and $100,000,000 more than the 
budget request. In addition, the Committee has rejected the 
President's request to rescind funds provided under this 
heading for fiscal year 2007.
    The HOPE VI program has replaced distressed public housing 
located in neighborhoods that have concentrated poverty with 
new mixed-income housing. HOPE VI projects have succeeded in 
improving the communities in which these developments are 
located, as well as changing the lives of public housing 
residents. While a great deal of public housing has already 
been rehabilitated through this program, the Committee believes 
that the HOPE VI program must continue to play an important 
role in revitalizing distressed communities.
    HUD made modifications to the program in 2002 that 
addressed some challenges identified with earlier grant awards. 
The agency has also taken steps to improve its management and 
oversight of the grant program. These changes have resulted in 
improved timeliness and accountability in the implementation of 
HOPE VI grants. These changes, as well as the increased 
resources leveraged from the private sector, make the case for 
the program's continuation.
    The Committee shares the administration's concern about the 
large amount of unobligated balances in this account and 
applauds HUD's efforts to work with older grantees to reduce 
their unspent balances. These efforts have reduced unexpended 
balances, from the high of $3,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 
to the current level of $1,500,000,000. In order to continue 
the advancement and expenditure of HOPE VI grants, the 
Committee continues to provide technical assistance funding at 
the level of $1,980,000 within the account. The Committee 
directs HUD to utilize this funding to provide grantees with 
the necessary tools to carry out successful HOPE VI projects. 
The Committee also makes notes of unobligated technical 
assistance funding and directs HUD to also use this funding to 
further reduce unexpended balances.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $623,700,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     626,965,000
Committee recommendation................................     630,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the native American housing block grants 
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
[NAHASDA]. This program provides an allocation of funds on a 
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within 
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will 
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent 
with the national goals of the program, but can base these 
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own 
Indian housing plan.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $630,000,000 
for the Native American Housing Block Grant, of which 
$1,980,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $17,000,000 for the section 601 Loan 
Guarantee Loan Program. This total level is $3,035,000 more 
than the budget request and $6,300,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 level.
    The Committee includes $2,000,000 for technical assistance 
through the National American Housing Council and $4,250,000 
for inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
training, technical assistance, oversight and management.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $8,726,850
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       5,940,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 
grants to State of Hawaiian Home Lands for housing and housing 
related assistance to develop, maintain, and operate affordable 
housing for eligible low income Native Hawaiian families.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 for 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, which is $3,060,000 
more than the budget request and $273,150 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall be for 
training and technical assistance activities.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..................       $6,000,000     $251,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008.................        7,450,000      367,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        7,450,000      367,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing 
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As 
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees 
authorized under this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,450,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $367,000,000. This 
subsidy level is the same as the budget request and $1,450,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..................         $891,000      $35,714,290
Budget estimate, 2008.................        1,044,000       41,504,255
Committee recommendation..............        1,044,000       41,504,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing 
finance because of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home 
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated 
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,044,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,255, which 
is the same as the budget request and $5,789,965 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level.

                   Community Planning and Development


     OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,420,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,520,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,520,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development is responsible for setting policy and administering 
HUD community development programs to assure the effective 
operation and achievement necessary to improve the economic, 
physical, and social capital of communities. The staff is 
responsible for representing policy and programs to clients and 
interest groups including Congress and coordinating uniform 
policy implementation to 43 field offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,520,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning 
and Development. This level is the same as the budget request 
and $100,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

        COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$87,870,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\93,770,000
Committee recommendation................................      93,770,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Community Planning and Development assists in 
developing viable communities by promoting integrated 
approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable living 
environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and 
moderate income persons. The primary means toward this end is 
the development of partnerships among all levels of government 
and the private sector, including for-profit and nonprofit 
organizations. This Office is responsible for the effective 
administration of Community Development Block Grant programs 
[CDBG], Home Investment Partnership [HOME], Brownfields 
Economic Development Initiative [BEDI], Self-Help Homeownership 
Opportunity Program [SHOP], Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with Aids [HOPWA] and other HUD community development programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $93,770,000 
for the Office of Community Planning and Development. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $5,900,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level.

          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $286,110,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     300,100,000
Committee recommendation................................     300,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] 
Program is designed to provide States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with 
HIV/AIDS and their families.
    Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are 
distributed by formula to qualifying States and metropolitan 
areas on the basis of the number and incidence of AIDS cases 
reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March 
31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The remaining 
10 percent of funds are distributed through a national 
competition.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $300,100,000 
for this program, which is $13,990,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2007 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The 
Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a manner 
that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent these 
programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with 
AIDS.
    Since the program's inception in 1992, HOPWA has assisted 
persons living with HIV/AIDS access and maintain housing and 
supportive services in order to avoid homelessness and improve 
access to health care. Research shows that housing is one of 
the greatest unmet needs of people living with HIV/AIDS, and 
that housing is critical to improving the health of persons 
living with the disease. The funding recommended by the 
Committee, and equal to the budget request, will allow 
providers to continue to address the unique housing and service 
needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS.
    The Committee supports HUD's efforts to gather data on the 
performance outcomes of HOPWA funding. The Committee is also 
pleased by initial data included in the 2008 performance 
budget, which indicate that HUD exceeded its goal for the 
percentage of HOPWA facility residents who are maintaining 
stable housing. The Committee looks forward to more 
comprehensive data in HOPWA's 2009 performance budget.

            OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $16,830,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      17,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was 
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive 
approach to rural housing and rural economic development 
issues. The account includes funding for capacity building in 
rural, underserved areas, and grants for Indian tribes, State 
housing finance agencies, State and local economic development 
agencies, rural nonprofits and rural community development 
corporations to pursue strategies designed to meet rural 
housing and economic development needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,000,000 
for the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development for 
fiscal year 2008, which is $170,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. The administration did not request funding for this 
program.
    The Committee does not accept the administration's 
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The 
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community 
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan 
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens 
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the 
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are 
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered 
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate 
appropriations. Calculations of population to determine if an 
area is rural shall be based on the reality of an area, not the 
aggregation of the total population of a number of rural areas 
in an application for funds.

                       community development fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $3,771,900,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   3,036,570,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,060,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award 
block grants to units of general local government and States 
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide 
range of physical, economic, and social development activities 
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local 
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the 
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate 
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate 
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit 
low- and moderate-income persons.
    Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community 
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective 
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age 
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are 
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are 
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting 
designated amounts for setasides.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,060,000,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2008. This 
level is $1,023,430,000 more than the budget request and 
$288,100,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.
    For the third year in a row, the administration has sought 
to justify their recommendation to slash funding for the 
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program by proposing 
legislative ``reforms'' for the program. For fiscal year 2008, 
the administration's budget proposes a funding cut of 
approximately 20 percent from the fiscal year 2007 level. The 
Committee notes that the administrations ``reform'' 
legislation, which has yet to be introduced in either the House 
or the Senate, purports to ``reform'' the program by cutting 
assistance to affluent communities. The Committee notes, 
however that CDBG grantees are required by law to use at least 
70 percent of their funding to benefit low and moderate-income 
persons. And, in reality, according to the HUD's own budget 
documents, between 95 and 97 percent of CDBG funds benefited 
low- and moderate-income persons in fiscal year 2006. The 
Committee applauds the State and local governments for their 
targeted use of funds to assist persons in greatest need. The 
Committee believes that such aggressive targeting efforts makes 
it clear that the administration's proposed ``reforms'' and 
reduced funding level would do nothing other than de-fund 
needed assistance in poor communities. The Committee recognizes 
that the CDBG program is one of the government's most effective 
and flexible tools to provide States and local communities with 
the resources to address such pressing needs. As such, the 
Committee rejects the administration's proposed funding cut.
    The Committee includes $62,000,000 for grants to Indian 
tribes for essential economic and community development 
activities which is $4,580,000 more than the budget request and 
$2,600,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.
    The Committee includes language indicating funding made 
available within this account, not to exceed $1,570,000, may be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund. This is equal to the 
budget request. The Committee includes the administration's 
proposal for $3,000,000 to be used for technical assistance 
activities within CDBG.
    The Committee also funds the Economic Development 
Initiative at $248,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives 
program at $40,000,000.
    The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
      Project description        recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadiana Outreach Center               $400,000  Vitter/Landrieu
 Housing Redevelopment;
 Lafayette, Louisiana.
Affordable Housing Revolving            400,000  Harkin/Grassley
 Loan Fund and Grant Pool,
 Scott County Housing Council,
 Davenport, IA. For affordable
 housing for those making lass
 than 80 percent of the AMI.
Akron-Canton Regional Foodbank,         550,000  Brown
 Akron, Ohio. The Akron-Canton
 Regional Foodbank for building
 renovations.
Appalachia Service Project Home         500,000  Byrd
 Repair Program, Southern West
 Virginia, for the repair of
 low and moderate income
 housing.
Appalachia Service Project,             200,000  Bunning
 Chavies, KY to continue free
 home repair services to
 Kentucky's low-income families.
Armory District Revitalization          200,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Planning, NY, for planning and
 design efforts within the
 City's Armory District to aid
 in the redevelopment of this
 deteriorating corridor.
Asian Counseling and Referral           500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Service, Seattle, WA, Asian
 Counseling and Referral
 Service for construction of a
 new building.
Audubon, Arkansas, Development          200,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 of Little Rock Audubon Center,
 Little Rock, AR, to complete
 the second phase of
 development of the Little Rock
 Audubon Center.
Audubon Mississippi, Pascagoula         750,000  Cochran
 River Audubon Center, Moss
 Point, Mississippi, to
 construct a nature-based
 education facility that will
 contribute to the economic and
 community recovery on the
 Mississippi Gulf Coast.
Beautiful Gate Outreach Center;         500,000  Carper/Biden
 Reaching Out and Saving Lives!
 Project; Wilmington, Delaware;
 for construction of a larger
 facility to be used for HIV
 testing services and
 prevention programs in New
 Castle County.
Bell-Whitley Community Agency,          200,000  Bunning
 Bell County, KY to complete
 construction of One Stop
 Training Center.
Bemidji Regional Airport,               500,000  Klobuchar
 Bemidji, Minnesota, for the
 Bemidji JOBZ infrastructure
 development project to support
 light manufacturing facilities.
Bernalillo County, NM;                  250,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Metropolitan Assessment and
 Treatment Services
 Transitional Housing Facility;
 Bernalillo County, NM.
Bold Vision Capital Campaign            500,000  Isakson
 for The Center for Family
 Resources: Georgia.
Borough of Collingswood, NJ,            200,000  Menendez/Lautenberg
 Collingswood Theatre Project,
 for comprehensive renovation
 of the Scottish Rite Theatre
 which is the focal point of
 the Borough's revitalization
 program.
Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater           500,000  Warner/Webb
 Washington, Alexandria, VA,
 for the renovation of the
 Alexandria, Virginia, Branch
 Boys and Girls Club.
Boys and Girls Club of Greater          300,000  Gregg
 Manchester, NH, for renovation
 and expansion of facility.
Boys and Girls Club of Magic            250,000  Crapo
 Valley, Twin Falls, Idaho, for
 construction of a Boys and
 Girls Club facility in the
 town of Buhl, Idaho.
Boys and Girls Clubs of Socorro         200,000  Domenici
 County, Construction of
 Facility, Socorro, New Mexico,
 provide services and
 activities for youth
 throughout Socorro County, NM.
Business Support Incubator,             600,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 UAPB to complete construction
 of the Business Support
 Incubator to support job
 creation in Central Arkansas.
Calvin Coolidge State historic          250,000  Sanders
 site in Plymouth Notch,
 Vermont for an expanded
 visitor's center.
Cameron County, Texas; Los              500,000  Cornyn
 Fresnos Boys and Girls Club;
 Construction of a new Boys and
 Girls Club facility in Los
 Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas.
Camp Barnabas; Missouri........         500,000  Bond
Canyon Lake Revitalization              200,000  Thune
 Study, Rapid City, South
 Dakota.
Capital District YMCA,                  200,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Schenectady, New York for
 construction of new YMCA at
 the side of a brownfield.
Capitol Region RSVP/Volunteer           200,000  Reed
 Center of Rhode Island, RSVP
 Veterans Computer Center,
 Providence, RI for
 construction of a computer lab
 and purchase of equipment to
 train disabled veterans.
Cather Foundation, Red Cloud,         1,000,000  Hagel/Nelson, Ben
 NE for the Moon Block Project
 for historic renovations.
Catholic Charities of Hawaii,           200,000  Inouye
 Honolulu, Hawaii, to renovate
 recently acquired property in
 Makiki to establish permanent
 facilities for CCH's Social
 Services Community Center.
CEDARS Youth Services, Lincoln,         500,000  Nelson, Ben/Hagel
 NE, CEDARS Children's Crisis
 Center, for construction of
 the CEDARS Children's Crisis
 Shelter.
Champlain Area Agency on Aging,         250,000  Sanders
 Winooski, Vermont, for
 renovation Vermont senior
 centers.
Cherokee Strip Regional                 200,000  Inhofe
 Heritage Center, Enid, OK.
Cheyenne River Youth Project            200,000  Johnson
 [CRYP], Teen Center Expansion,
 Eagle Butte, SD.
Children's Home Society,                800,000  Thune/Johnson
 Expansion of Van Demark House
 and the Loving School, Sioux
 Falls, South Dakota.
Chippewa Cree Tribe,                    600,000  Tester
 Transportation and
 Rehabilitation of Malmstrom
 Air Force Base Housing Units,
 to transport and rehabilitate
 housing units from Malmstrom
 Air Force Base that would
 otherwise be destroyed to the
 Rocky Boy's Reservation.
City and County of Denver, CO,          300,000  Salazar
 Homeless Veterans Supportive
 Housing, for supportive
 housing units for homeless
 veterans with special needs.
City and County of San                  800,000  Feinstein
 Francisco, CA, San Francisco
 Supportive and Transitional
 Housing Program, to develop
 3,000 supporting housing units.
City and County of San                  200,000  Boxer
 Francisco, San Francisco
 Supportive and Transitional
 Housing Program, San
 Francisco, CA: to finance the
 new construction of Mason
 Street, permanent supportive
 housing for homeless
 individuals.
City of Aberdeen, SD, Downtown          250,000  Johnson
 revitalization.
City of Albany, WiFi Service in         200,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Albany in Albany, New York,
 public access to technology
 project.
City of Ardmore, OK for a               200,000  Inhofe
 Community Resources Center for
 low income, at risk citizens.
City of Asheville, NC for Reid          200,000  Burr
 Center Renovation.
City of Atchison, Kansas for            500,000  Roberts
 Atchison Pedestrian Mall
 Redevelopment, Kansas.
City of Bangor, Maine to                350,000  Collins/Snowe
 support ongoing efforts to
 redevelop the Bangor
 Waterfront.
City of Battle Ground, WA,              400,000  Murray
 Battle Ground Community
 Center, for a construction of
 a community center.
City of Beaumont, Downtown              200,000  Hutchison
 Improvement Program, Beaumont,
 TX, for streetscape
 improvements.
City of Belen, NM; Multipurpose         750,000  Domenici
 Community Center Phase III;
 Belen, NM, to provide a
 centralized venue for
 community events and
 activities.
City of Bellingham, WA, for the         250,000  Murray/Cantwell
 construction of the Bellingham
 Marine Trades Center.
City of Bethlehem; South                200,000  Specter
 Bethlehem Workforce Training
 and Development Center;
 Bethlehem, PA--redevelopment,
 renovation and construction of
 a South Bethlehem Workforce
 Training and Development
 Center.
City of Billings, Housing First         400,000  Tester
 Project, to build houses for
 homeless families.
City of Billings, MT, Big Sky           500,000  Baucus/Tester
 Economic Development Authority
 for historic preservation of
 the Cobb Field facility.
City of Boise, Public Works             250,000  Crapo
 Department, Boise, Idaho, for
 design and construction of
 city's geothermal system
 expansion.
City of Brewer, Maine for a             350,000  Collins/Snowe
 redevelopment project on the
 site of the former Eastern
 Fine Paper Mill.
City of Browns Valley, Browns         1,000,000  Coleman
 Valley, MN, to aid in recovery
 efforts of a major flood.
City of Buffalo, NY for the             200,000  Clinton/Schumer
 construction and renovation of
 the Buffalo Urban Arts Center.
City of Canton, MS, to                  400,000  Cochran
 transform the Historic Canton
 High School into the Canton
 Municipal Government Complex.
City of Central Falls, Central          300,000  Reed
 Falls Urban Revitalization
 Project, Central Falls, RI for
 the remediation of the Old
 Public Works Building and
 rehabilitation of city
 recreational facilities.
City of College Park, MD for            700,000  Mikulski
 blight removal along the Route
 1 Corridor.
City of Columbus, IN, Golden            500,000  Bayh
 Castings Foundry Demolition
 and Site Remediation Project
 to raze and remediate the site
 of the former Golden Castings
 Foundry for the demolition and
 environmental remediation
 costs of the Golden Castings
 Foundry site.
City of Columbus, Indiana, Mill       1,000,000  Bayh
 Race Center for Active Adults
 for construction of the new
 30,000-square-foot Mill Race
 Center for Active Adults (the
 Mill Race Center) that offers
 a wide variety of programs for
 senior citizens.
City of Conover, North                1,000,000  Dole
 Carolina, Broyhill Furniture
 Industrial Site Redevelopment,
 to demolish unusable
 manufacturing structures at
 the abandoned Broyhill
 furniture manufacturing plant
 and refur.
City of Council Bluffs, Sunset          500,000  Harkin/Grassley
 Park North Neighborhood
 Redevelopment, Council Bluffs,
 IA, to redevelope the Katelman
 neighborhood.
City of Detroit, MI, for                280,000  Levin/Stabenow
 infrastructure improvements to
 continue the revitalization of
 the Brush Park Historic
 District neighborhood.
City of Eagle Mountain, Utah,           400,000  Hatch/Bennett
 Eagle Mountain Pony Express
 Regional Park for community
 development and park facility
 improvements for Eagle
 Mountain's Pony Express
 Regional Park.
City of Everett, WA, for the            600,000  Murray
 expansion of the Everett
 Senior Activity Center.
City of Fayetteville,                 1,000,000  Lincoln/Pryor
 Fayetteville Attainable
 Housing Partnership,
 Fayetteville, Arkansas, to
 support the Fayetteville
 Attainable Housing Partnership.
City of Florence, City of               200,000  Graham, L
 Florence Community Activity
 Center, SC, to provide for a
 new activity center.
City of Gardiner, Maine for             200,000  Collins/Snowe
 waterfront infrastructure.
City of Grand Junction, CO, to          300,000  Salazar
 create park in LMI
 neighborhoord and/or eliminate
 slum and blight.
City of Greenville, Community           200,000  Graham, L
 Recreation Centers,
 Greenville, SC for renovation
 of Greenville's recreation
 outdated recreation centers.
City of Grenada, Taylor Hall            250,000  Cochran
 Renovation Project, Grenada,
 MS, for the renovation of the
 historic Taylor Hall.
City of Hamilton, Fulton Bridge       1,000,000  Shelby
 Industrial Park, Hamilton, AL,
 Development of Industrial Park.
City of Hillsboro, Downtown             200,000  Hutchison
 Streetscape Project,
 Hillsboro, TX, for streetscape
 improvements.
City of Humboldt, Iowa for            1,000,000  Grassley
 Brownfields clean-up at Frit
 Industries site.
City of Kansas City, MO, to           1,000,000  Bond
 provide equipment to produce
 emerging plant-based economic
 development options for rural
 communities.
City of Kearney, Kearney, NE,         1,000,000  Nelson, Ben
 Peterson Senior Activity
 Center, for construction of
 the Peterson Senior Activity
 Center.
City of Lake Charles, Lake              400,000  Landrieu/Vitter
 Charles, LA, America's Wetland
 Center; to establish a center
 focused on increasing public
 awareness of the national
 importance of sustainable
 wetlands conservation,
 preservation, and restoration.
City of Las Vegas, NV, Post             200,000  Reid
 Office Museum, Las Vegas,
 Nevada, to complete renovation
 and transformation of the
 historic Post Office in
 downtown Las Vegas to a musuem
 on local history.
City of Lincoln, NE for                 300,000  Hagel/Nelson, Ben
 Antelope Valley Project
 Community Revitalization.
City of Madison, MS, City of          1,000,000  Lott
 Madison Historic Gateway
 Project, Madison, MS to
 support the developments of a
 new town square and renovation
 of the Madison Co. Cultural
 Center.
City of Marion, Iowa for                500,000  Grassley/Harkin
 Central Corridor Redevelopment
 Project.
City of Marshall, Memorial Hall         200,000  Hutchison
 Visitor and History Center
 Renovation, Marshall, TX, for
 the renovation of a historic
 building.
City of Marshalltown, Iowa, for         200,000  Grassley/Harkin
 Grant Park Neighborhood
 Redevelopment Initiative.
City of Medford; Santo                  400,000  Smith, G./Wyden
 Community Center--Phase III;
 Medford, OR; To create a
 gymnasium and large community
 classroom in Medford, OR.
City of Miami Beach, Florida;           750,000  Martinez
 Miami Beach City Center
 Housing; Miami Beach, Florida;
 to maintain affordable housing
 for low-income residents of
 Miami Beach, Florida.
City of Milford, Connecticut,           520,000  Lieberman
 Eisenhower Park Renovation,
 for the rehabilitation of
 Eisenhower Park.
City of Muncie, IN, Unity               500,000  Lugar/Bayh
 Center, Muncie, IN for a New
 community center.
City of Oakland, Oakland                500,000  Feinstein
 Transit-Oriented Villages,
 Oakland, CA for the
 development of new housing.
City of Orlando, FL, Parramore        1,000,000  Nelson, Bill/Martinez
 Neighborhood Revitalization,
 to redevelop this distressed
 area of downtown Orlando into
 a safe and prosperous
 community with a mixture of
 residential and supportive
 accessory opportunities.
City of Philadelphia, Green             300,000  Casey
 City Strategy, Philadelphia,
 PA to clean and green 450
 parcels--or about 450,000
 square feet--of vacant land in
 Philadelphia using topsoil,
 grass, trees, and wood fencing.
City of Pittsburgh, South Side          200,000  Casey
 Works, Pittsburgh; redevelop
 to enhance mobil-  ity.
City of Pittsfield, MA,                 250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Downtown Building Renovation
 and Rehabilitation.
City of Pocatello, Pocatello,           200,000  Crapo
 Idaho, for renovation and
 modernization of the Community
 Recreational Center.
City of Port Townsend, WA, for          450,000  Murray/Cantwell
 the construction of the
 Northwest Maritime Center.
City of Portland, OR,                 1,000,000  Wyden/Smith, G.
 Washington Monroe Community
 Center, for the design and
 construction of the community
 center and supporting elements.
City of Portland; Regional              600,000  Wyden/Smith, G.
 Bridges to Housing Program;
 Portland, OR and Vancouver,
 WA; to develop affordable,
 permanent family-sized housing.
City of Quincy; Riverfront              250,000  Durbin
 Infrastructure Improvement;
 Quincy, Illinois; to connect
 public facilities and public
 space in an economically
 distressed area in Quincy.
City of Reno, NV, Oliver-               600,000  Reid
 Montello Affordable Housing
 Project, to purchase vacant
 buildings in an effort to
 revitalize an area of
 northeast Reno and transition
 it from commercial to
 residential.
City of Rocky Mount, NC for             200,000  Burr
 renovations to the former
 Booker T. Washington High
 School.
City of Rugby, REAP Zones,              400,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 Rugby, North Dakota to expand
 economic development
 opportunities in two REAP
 zones.
City of Saginaw, MI, for              1,000,000  Stabenow/Levin
 acquisition and development of
 the Saginaw riverfront site.
City of Sarasota, Florida;              250,000  Martinez
 Robert L. Taylor Community
 Center, to rebuild the Robert
 L. Taylor Community Center, in
 the City of Sarasota's
 distressed Newtown
 neighborhood.
City of Scranton; Scranton              200,000  Specter
 Housing and Community Space
 Initiative; Scranton, PA--
 planning, design and
 construction of apartments and
 community space, as part of a
 downtown revitalization
 initiative.
City of Sparks, NV, Larry D.            300,000  Reid
 Johnson Community Center, to
 complete construction of a
 multi-purpose community center
 that will provide low income
 households and at-risk
 children with various
 educational classes.
City of Spearfish, SD,                  250,000  Johnson
 Spearfish Industrial Park
 Infrastructure Construction.
City of Suffolk, Virginia, to           200,000  Warner/Webb
 renovate and restore the
 Phoenix Bank of Nansemond
 building for purposes of the
 Museum.
City of Taunton, MA, to make            250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 structural and facility
 repairs to a low-income senior
 center.
City of Temple, Downtown                200,000  Hutchison
 Redevelopment/Performing Arts
 Centre, Temple, TX, for
 downtown redevelopment.
City of Tonasket, WA, Tonasket          200,000  Murray
 Community Center for building
 renovations.
City of Waterloo, IA                    500,000  Grassley
 Neighborhood Revitalization
 Area.
City of Waterloo, IA,                   500,000  Grassley
 Chamberlain demolition project.
City of Watertown, SD, Uptown           200,000  Johnson
 Revitalization.
City of Wilson, North Carolina,         500,000  Dole
 City of Wilson Downtown
 Redevelopment Project, to
 clear blighted old tobacco
 barns and old office buildings
 that currently exist in Wilson
 and to construct new homes for
 owner-occupancy.
City Year, Inc. City Year               250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Headquarters Renovation, to
 assist City Year, Inc. in the
 renovation of their
 headquarters to allow them to
 better serve their low-income
 students.
Coastal Heritage Society,               600,000  Chambliss
 Savannah Battlefield Historic
 Paint and Coach Shops,
 Savannah, GA, for
 revitilization and repair of
 the Georgia Central Railway
 Historic Paint and Coach Shops.
Coles County Council on Aging;          250,000  Durbin
 Coles County, Illinois, Coles
 County Council on Aging Senior
 Center to construct a new
 senior center.
Community Chest, Virginia City,         200,000  Reid
 NV, Storey County Youth and
 Community Resource Center, to
 complete construction on a
 multi-purpose community
 resource center.
Community Church of Christ,             200,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Sean Bell Memorial Field of
 Dreams, Community Youth
 Center, 167-04 108th Avenue,
 Jamaica, NY, for securing a
 site and/or purchasing a
 building for the Sean Bell
 Memorial Field of Dreams,
 Community Youth Center.
CommunityWorks, Inc. for                650,000  Baucus
 construction, including the
 finishing of the interior of
 the ExplorationWorks building.
Cooper University Hospital,             200,000  Lautenberg
 Camden, NJ for the Camden
 Cooper Urban Development
 Initiative, for neighborhood
 housing redevelopment.
County of Hudson, Jersey City,          400,000  Menendez/Lautenberg
 Redevelopment of Koppers Coke
 brownfield site, to transform
 the former Koppers Coke site
 in Kearny into a two million
 square foot industrial park
 that includes warehousing and
 distribution space.
County of Umatilla, OR,                 500,000  Smith, G./Wyden
 Umatilla County Fairgrounds
 Exposition Center to replace
 the obsolete Umatilla County
 Exposition Center with an
 18,000 square-foot exhibition
 hall.
Covenant House Alaska for               400,000  Murkowski
 Covenant House Enhancement and
 Relocation, to construct a new
 and larger facility.
Coventry Cares Community                500,000  Reed
 Center, Coventry Cares
 Community Center and Project
 Friends, Coventry, RI for the
 construction of an
 intergenerational complex
 comprised of human services,
 adult day care, and a senior
 center.
Crossroads Rhode Island,                300,000  Reed
 Crossroads Rhode Island Child
 Care and Community Center,
 North Kingstown, RI for the
 construction of a child care
 and community center to
 provide both homeless families
 and neighborhood residents
 with affordable child care.
Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch,            350,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch
 Treatment Facility Renovation,
 Minot, ND, to upgrade the
 mechanical heating and water
 lines, alarm system, and
 address accessibility concerns.
Daly Mansion Preservation               400,000  Baucus
 Trust, to preserve and
 interpret the Daly Mansion,
 its buildings, grounds and the
 history it conveys.
Delaware Children's Museum,             400,000  Carper/Biden
 Inc., for the construction of
 the Delaware Children's Museum
 in Wilmington, Delaware, as
 part of the effort to remove
 blight and redevelop
 brownfields along the
 Christina Riverfront.
Development Workshop, Inc.,             500,000  Craig
 Upper Valley Industries Plant
 Facility, Idaho Falls, Idaho,
 for planning and design of a
 new facility to provide job
 services for people with
 disabilities.
Dillon County, I-95 Industrial          200,000  Graham, L
 Park Spec Building, Dillon,
 South Carolina, to provide for
 the construction of an
 industrial park spec building
 near the City of Dillon on I-
 95.
East Baltimore Development,             200,000  Mikulski/Cardin
 Inc. (EBDI), Baltimore, MD,
 East Baltimore Development
 Project, to provide for
 workforce development, clean
 and safe programs, and
 infrastructure improvements.
Easter Seals Hawaii, Easter             200,000  Inouye
 Seals Hawaii Kapolei Service
 Center, Hawaii, to construct a
 multi-program service center
 to provide therapy and early
 intervention services to
 children with physical and
 developmental disabilities, as
 well as programs for teens and
 adults with disabilities.
Easter Seals New Hampshire,             500,000  Sununu
 Flood Repair and Renovation
 Project, Manchester, NH for
 reconstruction and renovation
 of Easter Seals New Hampshire
 building.
Edison Wetlands Association,            200,000  Lautenberg
 Edison, NJ for the Dismal
 Swamp Conservation Area Trails
 Project, for the design and
 construction of trails for
 public recreation in the
 Dismal Swamp Conservation Area.
El Centro de la Raza, Seattle,          300,000  Murray
 WA, El Centro de la Raza for
 facility improvements.
Empower New Haven, Brownfield's         750,000  Lieberman
 redevelopment initiative, New
 Haven, CT Redevelopment of a
 commercial venture and
 economic catalyst program.
Erie County; Erie Technology            200,000  Specter
 Incubator, Erie, PA for
 construction of the Erie
 Technology Incubator, which
 will promote economic
 development.
Fairfax County, Fairfax, to             500,000  Warner/Webb
 develop and build 15-30 units
 of single room occupancy
 housing for the chronically
 homeless.
FAME Assistance Corporation,            500,000  Feinstein
 Los Angeles, CA, for
 redevelopment of a blighted
 neighborhood.
Fondren Revitilization Project,         750,000  Cochran
 MS for the revitilization of
 the Fondren area in Jackson,
 MS.
Food Bank of Alaska Mat-Su              400,000  Murkowski
 Branch Building purchase, to
 allow the Food Bank of Alaska
 to purchase the collaborative
 anti-hunger facility in the
 Mat-Su Valley.
Four Bands Community Fund,              250,000  Johnson
 Inc., Revolving Loan Fund
 recapitalization, Eagle Butte,
 South Dakota.
Gambit Manufacturing and                200,000  Hatch
 Business Technology Center,
 Orem, UT.
Global Samaritan Resources,             200,000  Cornyn
 Abilene, Texas, to build a
 25,000 square foot warehouse
 facility for receiving,
 storing and shipping of goods
 used for humanitarian aid.
Goodrich-Gannett Neighborhood           500,000  Voinovich
 Center Cleveland, OH; Early
 Childhood/Family Services
 Center Campus Completion, to
 renovate and construct a new
 childcare/family services
 center.
Goodwill Industries of Hawaii,          200,000  Inouye
 Inc., Kapolei, HI, to
 construct the Goodwill Ohana
 Career and Learning Center to
 provide workforce development
 and job placement assistance
 to unemployed and under-
 employed low-income residents.
Grassroots Crisis Intervention          200,000  Mikulski
 Center, Inc., Columbia, MD, to
 provide the last stage of
 construction funding for the
 only emergency services
 shelter in Howard County,
 Maryland.
Gregory House Programs,                 200,000  Akaka
 Honolulu, HI, to renovate
 housing for a tempory housing
 facility that provides housing
 and support services for
 individuals suffering from HIV/
 AIDS.
Harbor Homes Inc., Veterans             400,000  Sununu
 Center, Buckingham Place,
 Nashua, NH, to provide
 transitional housing and
 support services for homeless
 veterans.
Hattiesburg Area Development          1,000,000  Lott/Cochran
 Partnership, Old Hattiesburg
 High School, Hattiesburg, MS.
 For the renovation of the old
 high school.
Hawaii Nature Center, Makiki            200,000  Inouye
 Valley, Honolulu, Hawaii,
 Makiki Valley Watershed
 Education Center Project.
Herriman City, UT, to acquire           200,000  Bennett
 and restore three histoically
 significant buildings in the
 community.
Holbrook Community Foundation           200,000  Collins/Snowe
 in Harpswell, Maine for repair
 and renovation of Holbrook's
 Wharf.
Homeward, Inc.; Equity for              300,000  Harkin/Grassley
 Rural Iowa-Revolving Loan
 Equity Fund; Iowa; Provide
 equity investment in rural
 communities.
Housing and Neighborhood                200,000  Lautenberg/Menendez
 Development Services, Inc.,
 Orange, NJ for the Berg Hat
 Factory Commercial Arts
 Center, to build out a
 business incubator and
 community arts complex within
 a formerly abandoned hat
 factory in a low income
 neighborhood.
Housing Authority of the City           200,000  Kohl
 of Milwaukee, Convent Hill
 Green Roof, to add a green
 roof to an affordable housing
 highrise for low-income
 seniors.
Institute for the Study and             200,000  Reed
 Practice of Nonviolence, RI,
 for Building renova-  tions.
International Peace Garden,             450,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 International Peace Garden
 facility renovation, Dunseith,
 ND to renovate the facilities
 at this international garden.
Iowa Department of Economic             800,000  Harkin
 Development, Des Moines, Iowa.
 To rehabilitate Main Street
 Communities.
Irvine Urban Outreach Center,           500,000  Cardin
 Baltimore County, Maryland,
 for an urban outreach center.
Jackson Medical Mall District           500,000  Cochran
 Economic and Community
 Development, MS for housing
 development.
Jewish Foundation for Group             200,000  Mikulski
 Homes, Inc., Rockville, MD,
 Jewish Foundation for Group
 Homes, to acquire and renovate
 a single-family home into an
 Alternative Living Unit for
 three adults with
 developmental disabilities.
Keehi Memorial Organization             300,000  Inouye
 [KMO], Keehi Adult Day Health
 Center and Child Care Center,
 Honolulu, Hawaii for an
 intergenerational health and
 child care center that will
 provide services to low and
 moderate income children and
 the elderly.
Kenai Peninsula Food Bank,              200,000  Murkowski
 Soldotna, AK to construct an
 expansion of the existing
 Kenai Peninsula Food Bank.
Kipahulu Community Association,         200,000  Inouye
 Inc, Hana, Hawaii, Kipahulu
 Certified Kitchen, the project
 will enable low income
 community members to gather as
 an intergenerational community
 and create jobs in Native
 Hawaiian food harvesting and
 processing.
Lakeview Museum; Lakeview               250,000  Durbin
 Museum construction; Peoria,
 Illinois; the museum will
 promote economic development
 and tourism in downtown Peoria.
Lamar County Commission, Lamar          800,000  Shelby
 County Industrial Park, Lamar
 County, Alabama,
 Infrastructure Development for
 Industrial Park.
Las Cruces Families and Youth,          200,000  Bingaman
 Inc., Las Cruces, NM, for
 construction of a new
 Transitional Living Program
 facility to house outpatient
 counseling for at risk youth
 and their families.
Las Cumbres Community Services;         500,000  Domenici/Bingaman
 Espanola, NM; for construction
 of new facility for community
 services.
Longview Housing Authority,             500,000  Murray
 Longview, WA, Phoenix House,
 for construction of low-income
 housing.
Looking for Lincoln Heritage            500,000  Durbin
 Coalition, for economic
 development of Illinois
 historic sites.
Los Pueblos Community Council,          400,000  Domenici
 Ribera, NM for Restoration and
 Preservation of Old Ribera
 School Building for the use of
 the building as community and
 cultural center.
Lutheran Settlement House; Low-         200,000  Specter
 Income Housing and Multi-
 Purpose Space; Philadelphia,
 PA--planning, design,
 redevelopment and construction
 of a facility, which will
 include affordable housing.
Maine State Music Theatre in            250,000  Collins/Snowe
 Brunswick, Maine to complete
 the renovation of rehearsal
 and office space in the newly
 acquired facility.
Marguerite's Place, Nashua, New         300,000  Gregg
 Hampshire, for the provision
 of transitional housing and
 supportive services to
 homeless women and children
 who have been victimes of
 domestic abuse.
Martin Luther King, Jr.               1,000,000  Obama
 Community Center, Rock Island,
 Illinois, for the renovation
 and expansion of the Martin
 Luther King, Jr. Community
 Center.
McKinley County, New Mexico,            500,000  Bingaman
 Construction of a new regional
 juvenile crisis complex.
Mercer County Commission; For         1,000,000  Byrd
 repair and renovation of the
 Memorial Building, Princeton,
 WV.
Mercy Housing Incorporated,             250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Mercy housing project in
 Holyoke, Massachusetts, to
 build 50 new homes for low-
 income senior citizens in
 Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Mid-America-Research and                500,000  Bond
 Development Foundation in
 Jefferson City, MO to provide
 equipment to produce emerging
 plant-based economic
 development options for rural
 communities.
Missoula Food Bank Inc.,                450,000  Tester
 Statewide Food Bank
 Transportation System,
 Missoula, MT to purchase eight
 new vehicles to rescue more
 local food.
Mobile C.A.R.E. Foundation,             300,000  Obama
 Chicago, IL for the
 acquisition and operation of
 Asthma Vans.
Mohawk Theater Restoration,             250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 North Adams, Massachusetts, to
 assist in the renovation of
 the Mohawk Theater and in the
 redevelopment of downtown
 North Adams.
Monmouth County, NJ for the NJ          200,000  Lautenberg/Menendez
 Children's Advocacy Center for
 the construction of a
 children's advocacy center for
 victims of child abuse.
Montgomery County Government,           400,000  Mikulski/Cardin
 Silver Spring, MD, Long Branch
 Pedestrian Safety Linkages and
 Way-Finding Community Markers,
 to provide for pedestrian
 safety in the Long Branch
 community.
Morningstar Community                 1,000,000  Bond
 Development Corporation in
 Kansas City, MO, to construct
 a youth family center.
Morning Star Ranch in Florence,         850,000  Brownback
 KS, to renovate facilities.
Mount Airy USA; Mount Airy              200,000  Specter
 Urban Renewal Initiative;
 Philadelphia, PA--blight
 removal, development, and
 construction, as part of an
 urban renewal initiative.
Municipality of Anchorage,            1,000,000  Stevens
 Mountain View Revitalization
 Project, Anchorage, Alaska to
 restore buildings in the
 Mountain View area.
Murray-Calloway County Economic       2,000,000  McConnell
 Development Corporation for
 the Industrial Park
 Acquisition and Development
 Project, to construct an
 industrial park.
Muskegon Heights Housing                200,000  Stabenow/Levin
 Commission, Muskegon Heights,
 MI, for community networking.
Nathan Adelson Hospice, Adult         1,000,000  Ensign
 Day Care Center, Henderson/Las
 Vegas, NV.
National Tropical Botanical             200,000  Inouye
 Garden; Kalaheo, Kaua'i,
 Hawai'i; to construct a Native
 Hawaiian community learning
 center.
Nebraska Innovation Center            1,000,000  Nelson, Ben/Hagel
 (Whittier) to renovate and
 improve the Whittier school
 for use as the Nebraska
 Innovation Center.
Neighborhood House, Seattle,            600,000  Murray
 WA, Highpoint Neighborhood
 Center, for construction of a
 community center.
Neighbors for Kids, Depoe Bay,          200,000  Smith, G./Wyden
 OR; to make an addition to
 their current fa-  cility.
New Center Council Inc.,              1,000,000  Levin/Stabenow
 Detroit, MI, for
 infrastructure improvements to
 enhance the economic viability
 of the Historic New Center.
NH Division of Parks and                300,000  Gregg
 Recreation, Robert Frost Farm,
 Derry, New Hampshire, for
 reconstruction.
Norman Economic Development             200,000  Inhofe
 Corp., Norman, OK for the
 construction of an engineering
 incubator that will create a
 new industrial center for
 Norman, OK.
Northeast Community Center              500,000  Murray
 Association in Spokane, WA,
 Northeast Community Center,
 for facility construction.
Northern Community Investment         1,000,000  Gregg
 Corporation to expand and
 secure the region's economy
 and public services by
 providing high speed, high
 technology connectivity
 throughout the region.
Northwest Tennessee Port                750,000  Alexander
 Authority, Tiptonville,
 Tennessee for the construction
 of this new facility will
 promote growth in the region
 and take advantage of unique
 transportation opportunities
 that will tie in the port.
Ocean Community YMCA, Camp              200,000  Reed/Whitehouse
 Watchaug Redevelopment,
 Westerly, RI for the
 renovations to create a state-
 of-the-art learning center.
OK Native American Cultural and         200,000  Inhofe
 Educational Authority for
 American Indian Cultural
 Center and Museum, Oklahoma
 City, OK.
Old Town Boys and Girls Club,           500,000  Bingaman
 Albuquerque, NM, for
 renovation of the existing Old
 Town Boys and Girls Club
 accompanied by construction of
 new areas for the Club.
Opportunity Village, Las Vegas,         300,000  Reid
 NV, Employment and Training
 Center, to construct a third
 facility in Las Vegas for
 employment services for those
 with intellectual disabilities.
Our Children's Homestead,               300,000  Grassley/Harkin
 Central Iowa for Housing/
 Vocational Education Program
 for Foster Children--Aging
 Out; Iowa.
Our City Reading; Housing               200,000  Specter
 Initiative; Reading, PA--
 rehabilitation of abandoned
 houses and provide down
 payment assistance to home
 buyers.
PACE Training and Evaluation          1,500,000  Byrd
 Center, Morgantown, WV, for
 the construction of a new
 training facility.
Patterson Park Community                300,000  Mikulski
 Development Corp., Library
 Square Revitalization Project,
 Baltimore, MD, to provide for
 the revitalization of an under-
 used area of Baltimore City.
Pearl City Foundation, Pearl            200,000  Inouye
 City, Hawaii, Momilani
 Community Center Adult Day
 Care and Child Care Facility
 Construction Project, to
 construct a new facility of
 6,700 square feet for the
 Elderly Daycare/Day Health and
 an Early Educational Daycare
 of the Head Start Program.
Penobscot Theatre Company in            200,000  Collins/Snowe
 Bangor, Maine to renovate the
 Bangor Opera House.
Port of Gold Beach, OR, Port of         500,000  Smith, G./Wyden
 Gold Beach High Dock
 Rehabilitation, to rebuild the
 High Dock at the Port of Gold
 Beach that provides critical
 infrastructure for water-
 dependent and water-related
 commercial and retail
 activities.
Preble Street in Portland,              200,000  Collins/Snowe
 Maine for the development of
 Florence House, a
 comprehensive center for
 homeless women.
Providence Connections, Inc.;           200,000  Specter
 Providence Family Support
 Center; Pittsburgh, PA for
 planning, renovation and
 redevelopment of the
 Providence Family Support
 Center.
Provo City Downtown Parking             200,000  Hatch
 Structure Project, Utah.
Rainier Vista Boys and Girls            500,000  Murray
 Club, Seattle, WA, Rainier
 Vista Boys and Girls Club for
 facility construction.
Randolph County YMCA, IN to             200,000  Lugar
 build a new licensed child
 care facility for 93 children.
Redevelopment Authority of the          750,000  Kohl
 City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
 30th Street Industrial
 Corridor-Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 for blight elimination and
 redevelopment of the 30th
 Street Corridor.
Redevelopment Authority of the          200,000  Kohl
 City of Racine, WI, for blight
 removal and reconstruction
 efforts.
RurAL CAP, Inc. for Rural               200,000  Murkowski
 Alaska Community Head Start
 Facility Upgrades.
Saginaw Depot Preservation            1,000,000  Levin/Stabenow
 Corporation, Saginaw, MI, to
 restore the historic Potter
 Street storefronts and add
 street enhancements.
Salina City, to build a senior          750,000  Bennett
 citizens and civic center for
 the three communities in the
 area of Salina, UT.
Salvation Army Alaska Division          400,000  Murkowski
 for Anchorage Salvation Army
 Family Enrichment Center to
 build a family shelter, a
 commercial-grade kitchen.
San Bernardino Boys & Girls             300,000  Boxer
 Club, Boys & Girls Club
 Improvements, San Bernardino,
 CA, for facility expansion.
San Francisco Museum and                500,000  Boxer/Feinstein
 Historical Society,
 Redevelopment of the Old Mint
 facility, San Francisco, CA.
Santa Clara Pueblo,                     500,000  Domenici
 Construction of Regional Adult
 Day Care Center, Espanola, NM,
 Regional Adult Day Care Center.
Seattle Nisei Veterans                  250,000  Murray
 Committee, Seattle, WA, Nisei
 Veterans Memorial Hall, for
 construction.
Second Harvest Food Bank of           1,000,000  Lugar
 East Central Indiana, Inc.,
 for Food Bank Capital
 Improvements Project.
Smithfield City, UT, to                 750,000  Bennett
 construct a new city complex.
Souhegan Boys and Girls Club,           200,000  Gregg
 Milford, NH, for renovations
 and reconstruction after
 severe flood damage.
South Dakota State Fair                 250,000  Johnson
 Foundation, Huron, SD, upgrade
 South Dakota State Fair Open
 Class Beef Complex and
 Hippodrome.
Southern Cultural Heritage              200,000  Cochran
 Foundation, Vicksburg, MS; for
 the renovation of the Southern
 Cultural Heritage Center
 Auditorium.
Southern Nevada Convention              400,000  Reid
 Training Trust, Las Vegas, NV,
 Convention and Trade Training
 Center, to construct a
 facility in Las Vegas to
 provide trade training for the
 convention industry to
 students who are unemployed,
 underemployed, or in
 transition.
Southern West Virginia                  200,000  Byrd
 Multicultural Museum and
 Community Center, Raleigh
 County, West Virginia, for the
 establishment of a
 multicultural museum and
 community center in Beckley,
 WV.
Southside Institutions                  200,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Neighborhood Alliance,
 Southside Institutions
 Neighborhood Alliance Blight
 Removal, Hartford, CT, for
 activities associated the
 acquistion, removal, and
 redevelopment of blighted
 properties in Hartford,
 Connecticut.
Spaulding Fibre Remediation and       1,500,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Demolition, NY to demolish the
 structures and remediate any
 environmental problems and
 develop new infrastructure on
 the site.
Springfield Boys and Girls              250,000  Durbin
 Club; Community Center;
 Springfield, IL; Planning,
 development, land acquisition,
 and construction costs for a
 new community center in
 Springfield.
St. Lawrence County Chamber of          200,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Commerce Inc., Regional Rural
 Broadband Expansion, Canton,
 NY. To expand broadband access
 to rural areas.
St. Louis Area Food Bank, St.           500,000  Bond
 Louis County, MO, Foodbank
 Warehouse Acquisition Project.
Stanford Settlement, Inc. Carl          200,000  Boxer
 R. Hansen Teen Center,
 Sacramento, CA. Funds will be
 used to construct a new teen
 center facility for at-risk
 youth in the northern area of
 Sacramento, CA.
Synergy Services, Inc., in              750,000  Bond
 Kansas City, MO, to design and
 construct a homeless youth
 shelter and campus.
Syracuse City, Utah for                 300,000  Hatch
 Syracuse City Utah Municipal
 Center Expansion Project.
Tallahatchie County Board of            750,000  Cochran
 Supervisors, Sumner, MS,
 Tallahatchie County Courthouse
 Restoration, for the
 restoration of the
 Tallahatchie County Courthouse.
TechTown, Detroit, MI for               200,000  Stabenow/Levin
 renovations for historic
 structures for economic
 development.
The Arc of Hilo, Arc of Hilo            400,000  Akaka/Inouye
 Client Support Services
 Facility Construction, in
 Hilo, HI, to construct a multi-
 purpose job training, day
 program, and community center
 for people with disabilities.
The ARC of Madison County               250,000  Shelby
 Facilities Expansion, AL.
The Children's Center of the            250,000  Alexander
 Cumberlands, Scott County,
 Tennessee, expand the
 Children's Center and allow
 expanded service and care for
 abused children.
The Children's Home, Children's         200,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Home [CH] Residential Facility
 Improvement Initiative,
 Cromwell, Connecticut, for the
 redesign of residential
 facilities.
The City of Newport News, VA,         1,000,000  Webb/Warner
 Jefferson Park Revitalization,
 VA, for acquisition,
 demolition, relocation
 activities and capital
 improvements of dilapidated
 housing.
The City of Northampton,                250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Massachusetts, Northampton
 State Hospital Renovation, to
 assist the City of Northampton
 in developing more than 200
 units of affordable housing.
The Civic Center of Moreau,             200,000  Schumer/Clinton
 Inc. The Moreau Community
 Center, Campaign to Establish
 the New Regional Community
 Center at Moreau, South Glens
 Falls, NY, for the
 construction of the Regional
 Community Center at Moreau
 which will provide
 dramatically improved
 educational, recreational, and
 community service facilities
 as well as substantial
 economic development.
The Greater Boston Food Bank,           250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Boston, Massachusetts, for the
 development of a new facility
 to distribute food to
 Massachusetts families in need.
The Ministry of Caring Inc.;          1,000,000  Biden/Carper
 Mary Mother of Hope House I--
 Renovation Project,
 Wilmington, DE, to renovate
 the Mary Mother of Hope House
 which provides housing and
 support services from homeless
 women 18 and older.
The Westfield Boys and Girls            250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Club, Westfield,
 Massachusetts, Westfield Boys
 and Girls Club, for renovation
 and repair.
TLC for Children and Families,          750,000  Brownback
 Olathe, KS, for an emergency
 shelter and social services
 for children and youth in the
 Kansas City.
To Bridgeton Board of                   200,000  Lautenberg
 Education, Bridgeton, NJ for
 the restoration of the
 historic Bridgeton High School
 facility which was built
 during the New Deal by the WPA.
To Paterson Board of Education,         200,000  Lautenberg
 Paterson, NJ, Hinchliffe
 facility, for the restoration
 of the historic Hinchliffe
 facility.
To the Goodwill Rescue Mission,         200,000  Lautenberg
 Newark, NJ for the renovation
 of transitional living
 facilities.
Tom Green County, San Angelo,           200,000  Hutchison
 TX, for the relocation and
 expansion of the Tom Green
 County Library, the only
 public library in the region.
Town of Bolton, MS, Bolton              200,000  Cochran
 Municipal Building, for
 renovation of the Bolton
 Municipal Building.
Town of Colebrook, Mohawk River         400,000  Sununu
 Retaining Wall, Colebrook, NH,
 repair retaining wall and two
 water mains along the Mohawk
 River.
Town of Colmar Manor, Colmar            600,000  Cardin
 Manor Community Center, Colmar
 Manor, Maryland, to construct
 a multi-use community facility
 that combines community
 organizations and municipal
 services.
Town of Goodman, MS for the             200,000  Cochran
 remodeling of a historic
 building.
Town of Manchester,                     200,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Connecticut, Spruce Street
 Youth Center, Manchester,
 Connecticut, for construction
 activities associated with the
 conversion of an old firehouse
 facility into a municipal
 youth center.
Town of Marietta, MS, for the           200,000  Cochran
 construction of a multi-
 purpose facility.
Town of Vernon, Amberbelle Mill         200,000  Dodd/Lieberman
 Historic Restoration
 Initiative, Vernon,
 Connecticut, for exterior and
 interior upgrades to the
 historic Amberbelle Mill
 facility.
Turtle Mountain Band of                 500,000  Conrad/Dorgan
 Chippewa, Turtle Mountain
 Youth Center, Belcourt, ND to
 construct a youth center for
 Native Americans on the
 reservation.
United Methodist Youthville,            300,000  Roberts
 Dodge City, Kansas to provide
 a central kitchen/dining
 facility for the campus in
 compliance with federal
 regulations.
United Way for Southeastern             400,000  Stabenow/Levin
 Michigan, Detroit, MI, to
 construct a training center
 for non-profit social service
 providers.
United Way of Treasure Valley,          250,000  Crapo
 Boise, Idaho, for construction
 of a Community Detox Center.
Urban League of Eastern                 250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Massachusetts, Roxbury,
 Massachusetts, to assist in
 the expansion of the Urban
 League of Eastern
 Massachusetts facility
 expansion.
Urban League of Rhode Island,           500,000  Reed
 South Providence Neighborhood
 Center Building Project,
 Providence, RI for the
 construction of a three-story,
 9,000 square foot addition to
 house a community meeting
 room, senior center, and
 office space.
Vermont Housing and                   2,600,000  Leahy
 Conservation Board, VT, for
 affordable housing and
 community development linked
 with land conservation and
 historic preservation.
Veterans Benefits                       250,000  Kennedy/Kerry
 Clearinghouse, Roxbury, MA,
 Veterans Benefits
 Clearinghouse renovation, to
 renovate the Veterans Benefits
 Clearinghouse facility to
 allow the non-profit
 organization to expand its
 programs to assist low-income
 veterans across Massachusetts.
Waipahu Jack Hall Memorial              300,000  Inouye
 Housing Corporation, Oahu, HI,
 to renovate, repair, and
 maintain the Kunia Village
 Housing Complex and to bring
 it in compliance with Honolulu
 City and County housing codes.
Washington County Free Library,         200,000  Mikulski
 New Washington County Free
 Library Branch in Boonsboro,
 MD, to facilitate design and
 construction of new library
 branch.
Western Elmore County                   500,000  Craig
 Recreation District, Mountain
 Home Community Center Complex,
 Mountain Home, Idaho, for
 planning, design, and
 construction of an energy
 efficient, multi-use community
 center.
Where to Turn, Hands and                600,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Hearts, Staten Island, NY for
 the construction of a 9/11
 living memorial.
Wichita, KS for the 21st Street         300,000  Roberts
 Industrial Corridor
 Revitalization Plan and Pre-
 Engineering Designs.
Wilmington Housing Authority,         1,000,000  Biden/Carper
 Wilmington, DE, Sprinkler
 Retrofit of High Rise
 Building, to retrofit the
 Crestview Apartments with a
 fire suppression sprinkler
 system.
Wisconsin Regional Training             250,000  Kohl
 Partnership, Center for
 Excellence, Milwaukee, WI, to
 complete renovation of the
 Center of Excellence for the
 assessment, preparation and
 placement of job-ready
 candidates for careers in
 skilled trades and industries.
World Impact, St. Louis, MO, in         750,000  Bond
 St. Louis, to renovate the
 former YMCA North Building.
YMCA of Spokane, WA, YMCA/YWCA          500,000  Murray/Cantwell
 of Spokane, for facility
 construction.
YMCA of Tacoma-Pierce County,           250,000  Murray
 Tacoma, WA, YMCA of Tacoma-
 Pierce County for facility
 construction.
YWCA of Greater Los Angeles,            200,000  Boxer
 Union Pacific Child
 Development and Family Center,
 Los Angeles, CA: for the
 construction of the new Union
 Pacific Child Development and
 Family Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The neighborhood initiatives are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Committee
      Project description        recommendation        Requested by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bering Straits Native                  $750,000  Stevens
 Corporation, Nome, Alaska,
 funds will be used for the
 construction and expansion of
 the site pad for the quarry.
Center for Planning Excellence;       2,000,000  Landrieu
 Baton Rouge, LA to continue to
 coordinate urban and rural
 planning efforts in South
 Louisiana.
Central Wyoming College                 600,000  Enzi
 Foundation; Intertribal
 Education and Community
 Center; Riverton, Wyoming; to
 complete construction of and
 purchase equipment for the
 Intertribal Education and
 Community Center.
City of Forsyth, Georgia to             500,000  Isakson
 renovate and repair the
 buildings on the former Tift
 College campus so that it will
 be ready to house the hundreds
 of employees of the State
 Department of Corrections.
City of Green Bay, Wisconsin,         1,500,000  Kohl
 Neighborhood Block
 Redevelopment, to purchase,
 demolish and refurbish
 blighted properties to
 eliminate overcrowding, reduce
 crime and stablize a
 struggling neighborhood.
City of Rochester, NY,                  200,000  Clinton/Schumer
 Rochester Lead Hazard
 Prevention Program, to enhance
 lead hazard assessments,
 inspections, remediation
 training and outreach to
 expedite lead hazard
 remediation in public housing.
Emergency Demolition of the           1,000,000  Grassley/Harkin
 Former Swift Plant (KD
 Station) in Sioux City,  Iowa.
Hiawatha Village Low Income             750,000  Murray
 Housing Development Project,
 Seattle, WA.
homeWORD, Missoula, MT to             1,000,000  Baucus/Tester
 develop rental housing that is
 affordable to working families
 in Missoula, MT.
John C. Stennis Institute for         1,000,000  Cochran
 Capacity Development
 Initiative, MS.
Kitsap County Resources                 200,000  Murray/Cantwell
 Community Services Center
 Construction, Bremerton,
 WA.
Miami Dade Collect, FL, Cuban           500,000  Martinez
 American Historical Museum at
 the Miami Dade College Freedom
 Tower, Florida.
NeighborhoodsNOW, Community           2,000,000  Brownback
 Foundation of Wyandotte
 County, Kansas City, KS.
Passage Point Transitional              500,000  Murray
 Housing Construction, King
 County, WA.
Poplar Bluff Historic Depot             250,000  Bond
 Restoration; Missouri.
Robinson Film Center Building;          400,000  Vitter
 Shreveport, Louisiana.
Salishan HOPE VI Redevelopment        1,500,000  Murray
 Project, Tacoma, WA.
Starr Commonwealth of Ohio, Van         700,000  Brown
 Wert and Columbus, Ohio, Starr
 Commonwealth facilities
 renovations for positive
 environments where children
 flourish.
Washington State Housing              1,000,000  Murray
 Finance Commission, Seattle,
 Washington, for capacity
 building.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                      Program costs     guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..............         $3,715,000       $137,500,000
Budget estimate, 2008.............  .................  .................
Committee recommendation..........          6,000,000        275,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal 
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and 
non-entitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring 
real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, 
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 
the program costs associated with the section 108 loan 
guarantee program. This amount is $2,287,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2007 level. The administration recommended no 
funding for this program.
    Of the funding provided, $6,000,000 is for credit subsidy 
costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments 
in fiscal year 2008.
    The Committee recognizes that for every $1 of section 108 
funding, $3 is leveraged in private investment. This additional 
private investment will benefit revitalization efforts across 
the country. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
streamline the section 108 loan guarantee process to ensure 
that communities in need have access to this effective 
financing tool more promptly.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $9,900,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment 
program. This program provides competitive economic development 
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for 
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance 
with section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports 
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 
for the Brownfields Redevelopment program which is $100,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level. The administration 
recommended no funding for this program.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,757,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,966,640,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,970,000,000

                          program description

    Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as 
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 
This program provides assistance to States and units of local 
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and 
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people. 
Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance, 
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and 
ownership housing and, also, construction of housing. To 
participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 
must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. 
There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating 
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are 
experiencing fiscal distress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,970,000,000 
for the Home Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 
$3,360,000 more than the budget request and $212,750,000 more 
than the comparable level for fiscal year 2007. The Committee 
does not provide funding for the American Dream Downpayment 
Fund as such downpayment assistance is already an eligible 
purpose for funding made available through the HOME program.
    Technical Assistance.--The Committee includes $15,000,000 
for technical assistance. This amount is $5,100,000 more than 
the budget request and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for qualified 
nonprofit intermediaries to provide technical assistance to 
Community Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The 
remaining $5,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical 
assistance to HOME participating jurisdictions.
    Housing Counseling.--The Committee provides $150,000,000 
for housing counseling activities within the HOME account. This 
amount is $108,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.
    The Committee is concerned about the impact of the rapidly 
expanded use of subprime and other mortgage products that have 
placed millions of Americans in jeopardy of losing their home. 
According to the Mortgages Bankers Association, new foreclosure 
starts rose to another record level in the first quarter of 
2007. Falling property values in some States are contributing 
to this spike. The Committee encourages the Secretary to use 
every available resource within the Department to address this 
housing worsening crisis.
    In order to help address this issue, the Committee has 
increased funding for housing counseling by more than 350 
percent for fiscal year 2008. Within the amount provided, 
$100,000,000 shall be exclusively targeted on individuals and 
families who are currently in foreclosure or are facing the 
immediate prospect of losing their homes through foreclosure. 
Such funding may also be targeted on individuals and families 
who may need to modify or refinance their loan to prevent the 
possibility of foreclosure. Such activities may include 
community-based outreach efforts to contact borrowers.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to issue a Notice of 
Funding Availability for these funds within 60 days of 
enactment of this act. Eligible entities should include 
national and regional intermediaries including qualified fair 
housing enforcement organizations with experience providing 
delinquency, default and foreclosure counseling and prevention. 
Eligible entities should be able to provide immediate 
assistance, especially in areas where the Secretary determines 
the greatest needs exist.

                  SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $49,390,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      69,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program [SHOP] funds 
assist low-income homebuyers willing to contribute ``sweat 
equity'' toward the construction of their houses. The funds 
will increase nonprofit organization's ability to leverage 
funds from other sources and produce at least 2,000 new 
homeownership units. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account. 
SHOP was previously funded as a set-aside within the Community 
Development Fund. This account also includes funding for the 
National Community Development Initiative for grantees to 
develop the capacity of nonprofit community development 
entities to undertake community development and affordable 
housing projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $300,000 more than the 
budget request and $20,610,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
level. The Committee has included $26,500,000 for the Self-Help 
Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized under section 11 
of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996.
    The Committee recommends $33,500,000 for capacity building 
as authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 
1993. The Committee notes that funding provided under this 
section requires a statutory 3 to 1 match to further leverage 
resources to assist more communities. In fiscal year 2006, the 
Local Initiative Support Coalition and the Enterprise Community 
Partners leveraged over $8 for every one Federal dollar 
provided by this program. The Committee includes statutory 
language allowing up to $5,000,000 under this program to be 
used for capacity building activities in rural areas.
    The Committee provides additional funding for programs to 
further enhance capacity building activities to maximize 
Federal investment for housing and community development 
activities. The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for Housing 
Assistance Council (Domenici/Leahy/Inouye); $2,000,000 for the 
National American Indian Housing Council (Johnson/Domenici); 
$2,000,000 for the Housing Partnership Network (Reid/Mikulski); 
and $3,000,000 for the Raza Development Fund of La Raza (Dodd/
Martinez/Lieberman/Obama/Landrieu/Kerry/Bingaman/Casey/
Menendez/Brown/Clinton/Boxer/Durbin).

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................  $1,441,600,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   1,585,990,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,585,990,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons 
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing 
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and 
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons 
and families. The emergency grant is a formula funded grant 
program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter 
plus care programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance 
grants provide Federal support to one of the Nation's most 
vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in 
addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of 
homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of 
Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help 
those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward self-
sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,585,990,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants for fiscal year 2008. This 
amount is equal to the budget request and $144,390 more than 
the fiscal year 2007 level. Of the amount provided $8,000,000 
is for technical assistance and data analysis and $2,475,000 is 
for the Department's working capital fund. Sufficient funding 
has also been included to fully fund Shelter Plus Care renewals 
on an annual basis. The Committee has continued bill language 
that: (1) requires not less than 30 percent of the funds 
appropriated, excluding renewal costs, shall be for permanent 
housing for both individuals and families; (2) requires the 
renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts on an 
annual basis if the contract meets certain requirements; (3) 
requires a 25 percent match for social services; and (4) 
requires all homeless funding recipients to coordinate and 
integrate their programs with other mainstream and targeted 
social programs.
    The Committee has not included the transfer of funds to the 
Department of Labor [DOL] for the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative 
as requested in the budget. The budget documentation provided 
little detail on how this money would be used to address the 
housing needs of returning prisoners. Moreover, the Committee 
believes that DOL is not the appropriate agency to address 
housing issues.
    Rapid Re-Housing Demonstration Program.--The Committee has 
provided $25,000,000 for the Secretary to conduct a 
demonstration program on the effectiveness of rapid re-housing 
programs in reducing the number of homeless families. Every 
year, there are over 600,000 families that experience 
homelessness in the United States. Since there are few 
alternatives available to these families, many of whom are 
victims of domestic violence, they often end up in emergency 
shelters. They now spend more time in shelters than may be 
necessary. These extended shelter stays can be harmful for 
families and especially for children according to HUD's own 
Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR]. Recent research has 
also indicated that the traditional approaches to serving 
homeless families may not be effectively addressing the needs 
of these families, and may be more costly. Therefore, HUD must 
evaluate new methods aimed at reducing family homelessness.
    Rapid re-housing is one approach that is showing promise in 
effectively reducing family homelessness. This approach 
minimizes the amount of time that families are homeless by 
quickly moving them out of shelters and into safe and stable 
housing. Rapid re-housing programs provide families with 
housing placement services, short-term housing assistance, and 
follow up case management. Research on the effectiveness of 
this approach, though promising, is limited. The Committee 
believes that further evaluation of rapid re-housing programs 
will better inform policies related to homeless families.
    The Committee directs HUD to select a limited number of 
sites to receive funding for this demonstration program as a 
part of the Homeless Assistance Grants competition. In order to 
have a successful demonstration, HUD should consider the 
following factors in selecting sites: proven experience in 
rapid re-housing, performance of the Continuum of Care, and 
geographic diversity. Selected sites should have programs that 
minimize the amount of time that families are homeless, provide 
families with housing placement services, short-term housing 
assistance, including up to 12 months of rental assistance, and 
provide case management services to ensure that families are 
stably housed and connected to mainstream services. In 
addition, the Secretary may consider the ability of projects to 
leverage support from other sources.
    The Committee has also included language that allows the 
Secretary to use up to $3,000,000 to conduct an evaluation of 
the demonstration program. It is critical to gather information 
and data on the effects of this approach in reducing family 
homelessness, which should help HUD develop a long-term 
strategy to end family homelessness.
    Goal to End Chronic Homelessness.--The administration has 
stated a goal to end chronic homelessness by 2012 and in fact 
has targeted resources within the Homeless Assistance program 
to support projects that serve the chronically homeless. The 
Committee continues to support this effort, which has enabled 
homeless providers to better serve this vulnerable population, 
with research-based and results-driven strategies. It is 
important that the Committee understand the progress that HUD 
and communities across the country are making toward meeting 
this important goal. Currently, the Committee has no point of 
comparison that demonstrates a reduction in the number of 
chronic homeless persons. Therefore, as part of the 
Department's 2009 performance budget, HUD is directed to 
include verifiable and updatable data that demonstrates how the 
funding provided through the Homeless Assistance Grants program 
is effectively reducing the number of chronically homeless in 
order to meet the administration's goal of ending chronic 
homelessness.
    Permanent Supportive Housing.--The Committee continues 
language that requires 30 percent of funds be set aside for 
permanent supportive housing for individuals and families. This 
will support Federal, State and local efforts to increase the 
supply of permanent housing until the estimated need of 150,000 
units is met. The Committee continues to believe that permanent 
supportive housing is critical to reducing homelessness for 
both individuals and families.
    Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].--In February 
2007, HUD released the first Annual Homeless Assessment Report. 
This report stemmed from congressional directives begun in 2001 
that charged the Department with collecting homeless data 
through the implementation of a new Homeless Management 
Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report included HMIS data, 
information provided by Continuums of Care, and a count of 
sheltered and unsheltered persons from one night in January 
2005. This report provided a better understanding of the 
Nation's homeless--who they are, where they are located, and 
the services they are accessing. The Committee applauds these 
efforts to collect and analyze data on the Nation's homeless. 
This is an important tool to evaluate fiscal and policy 
decisions related to homelessness in the United States.
    The report did, however, highlight some flaws in the HMIS 
data. This underscored the need for HUD to continue to use some 
of the technical assistance funding provided to ensure the 
participation in HMIS by all grantees, and to make improvements 
to the data. The Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR 
report by March 21, 2008. The Committee further hopes that 
HUD's efforts to increase participation in the HMIS effort will 
lead to improved information about and understanding of the 
Nation's homeless.
    Renewal Costs.--The Committee reiterates the directive 
included in the conference report for the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (House Report 108-792) regarding out-
year costs of renewing HUD's permanent housing programs. The 
Department should continue to include 5-year projects, on an 
annual basis, for the cost of renewing the permanent housing 
component of the Supportive Housing program and the Shelter 
Plus Care program in its fiscal year 2009 budget 
justifications.

                            Housing Programs


    OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING, FEDERAL HOUSING 
                              COMMISSIONER

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$3,260,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\3,420,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,420,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing 
Commissioner, provides program policy and guidance, as well as 
providing oversight for all of housing's programs and 
regulatory functions. The office staff coordinates inquires and 
concerns from partners in the housing industry, Congress, and 
from the American public regarding housing programs. The staff 
also leads and coordinates operational issues and procedures to 
assure that housing, HUD and other Government-wide policies and 
regulations are consistently followed throughout all of 
housing's offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,420,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal 
Housing Commissioner. This level is the same as the budget 
request and $160,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                           OFFICE OF HOUSING

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007.................................... \1\$326,550,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................  \1\351,560,000
Committee recommendation................................     351,560,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Housing implements housing's programmatic, 
regulatory, financial, and operational responsibilities under 
the leadership of six deputy assistant secretaries and the 
field staff for activities related to FHA multifamily and 
single family homeownership programs, housing counseling grant 
program, and assisted housing programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $351,560,000 
for the Office of Housing. This level is the same as the budget 
request and $25,010,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $734,580,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     575,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     735,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for housing for the elderly 
under section 202. Under this program, the Department provides 
capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, 
rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors and 
provides project-based rental assistance [PRAC] to support 
operational costs for such units.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $735,000,000 
for the section 202 program. This level is $160,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $420,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for service 
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate 
service grants; up to $24,750,000 for the conversion of 
projects to assisted living housing or for substantial 
rehabilitation for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000 for 
grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering work, 
site control and planning activities. The Committee includes 
language allowing up to $1,400,000 to be transferred to the 
Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee has not provided the $25,000,000 sought in 
the budget for a Leverage Financing Demonstration program. The 
Committee notes that HUD has provided very little supporting 
documentation as to the need for this program. Moreover, the 
initiative has little or no support from the practitioners 
working within the section 202 program. Moreover, it appears 
that the program would seek to demonstrate activities that 
could already be funded under the regular section 202 program.
    The Committee is again dismayed by the administration's 
efforts to slash funding targeted on the housing needs of low-
income elderly citizens. According to a recent survey by the 
American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], there are at 
least 10 seniors waiting for every available section 202 unit 
that becomes available. This estimate does not consider 
properties that have closed their waiting list or seniors that 
have been discouraged to apply for the program because of the 
low turnover and long waiting lists that are common for this 
program. The 2005 Affordable Housing Needs Report from HUD 
states that, between 2003 and 2005, the number and percentage 
of elderly renters with very low incomes and worst case housing 
needs by 9.6 percent to 3.58 million. The number of worst case 
seniors has increase by 1.5 percent to 1.291 million.
    The Committee notes that, while improvements have been made 
over the last year, much more needs to be done by HUD to 
expedite the process of approving project applications under 
the 202 program. The Committee is hopeful that HUD will 
continue to make progress in this area. The Committee also 
expects HUD to use a portion of this appropriation for 
necessary emergency repairs to preserve this essential housing 
stock.

                 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $236,610,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     237,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for housing for the persons 
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the 
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for 
persons with disabilities. Up to 25 percent of the funding may 
be made available for tenant-based assistance under section 8 
and provides project-based rental assistance [PRAC] to support 
operational costs for such units.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $237,000,000 
for the section 811 program. This level is $112,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $390,000 more than the fiscal year 
2007 level. HUD is directed to ensure all tenant-based 
assistance made available under this account shall remain 
available for persons with disabilities upon turnover. The 
Committee has provided $74,745,000 for incremental section 8 
vouchers under this program. In addition, section 811 funds may 
be used for inspections by HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center 
[REAC] and for related inspection activities. HUD is directed 
to submit a budget to the Committees on Appropriations before 
funding REAC inspections. The Committee includes language 
indicating funding made available within this account, not to 
exceed $600,000, may be transferred to the Working Capital 
Fund.
    This is the fourth consecutive year that the President's 
budget proposed deep cuts to the capital advance/project-based 
side of the 811 program. Both the House and Senate have 
consistently rejected these cuts which would undermine a 
program already burdened with significant renewal costs.
    According to Priced Out in 2006, a recent study of income 
and rental costs for people with the most significant and long 
term disabilities, people receiving Federal Supplemental 
Security Income [SSI] benefits had incomes equal to only 18.2 
percent of median income in 2006. Over 4 million non-elderly 
adults receive SSI and it can be conservatively estimated that 
more than 1 million of these persons need permanent supportive 
housing. The current section 811 program produces fewer than 
1,000 new units per year.
    The Committee recommends no new funding for the section 811 
mainstream program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee, once 
again, urges HUD to issue programmatic guidance for the section 
811 tenant-based program. Such guidance should include criteria 
for targeting of assistance consistent with 811 supportive 
housing eligibility criteria and retention of a meaningful role 
for nonprofit organizations. As in the case of the section 202 
program, the Committee has not provided funding for a Leveraged 
Financing Demonstration program, since the program apparently 
lacks both justification and support within the section 811 
practitioner community.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $26,136,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      27,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides amendment funding for housing 
assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $27,600,000 for HUD-assisted, 
State-aided, non-insured rental housing projects.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents 
in excess of the established basic rents for section 236 
projects. Subject to appropriations, HUD is authorized to 
transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the 
Flexible Subsidy Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated 
from the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will 
continue to offset flexible subsidy outlays and other 
discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing 
projects. The language is designed to allow surplus funds in 
excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project 
owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and renovation 
of projects.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $13,000,000
Budget request, 2008....................................      16,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 
request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 
level.
    The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its 
proposed fiscal year 2007 budget request, and encourages the 
HUD to continue doing so in its future budgets. In addition, 
the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its 
expenditures for this program in accordance with the 
appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement 
Act of 2000.

                     Federal Housing Administration


               mutual mortgage insurance program account


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Administrative
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on    expenses including
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        contract
                                                                                                administrators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007................................         $50,000,000    $185,000,000,000        $413,424,000
Budget estimate, 2008...............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000         428,850,000
Committee recommendation............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000       \1\77,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for MMI are funded within the Office of Housing.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Administrative
                                       Limitation on       Limitation on    expenses including
                                        direct loans     guaranteed loans        contract         Program costs
                                                                              administrators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007...............        $50,000,000     $45,000,000,000        $307,812,341        $8,712,000
Budget estimate, 2008..............         50,000,000      35,000,000,000         307,197,000         8,600,000
Committee recommendation...........         50,000,000      45,000,000,000       \1\78,111,000         8,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing.

                          program description

    The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 
mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan 
insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual mortgage 
insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance 
[CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the special 
risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting 
control purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts 
based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance 
programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the 
cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute one 
set; and the general risk insurance and special risk insurance 
funds, which are partially composed of subsidized programs, 
make up the other.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $50,000,000 and $77,400,000 for administrative 
contract expenses of which up to $25,550,000 may be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee provides $5,000,000 for HUD to make HUD-owned 
or HUD-held housing available through a right of first refusal 
to units of local government. This language requires this 
housing to be maintained for low-income residents' use pursuant 
to requirements established by HUD.
    For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 
$45,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a 
limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000. The Committee 
provides $78,111,000 for administrative contract expenses of 
which up to $15,692,000 may be transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund.
    The Committee does not provide for transfers of funds from 
FHA to the HUD ``Management and Administration Salaries and 
Expenses account''. The Committee has eliminated all salaries 
and expenses transfers and replaced this funding mechanism with 
direct appropriations to specific salaries and expenses 
accounts within each HUD mission area. This new format will 
provide for a more transparent process and a more effective way 
to allocate staffing to match programmatic needs.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 2008 for multifamily bridge loans and single 
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain 
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall 
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained 
commitments for permanent financing from another lender. 
Purchase money mortgages will enable governmental and nonprofit 
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
    On March 15, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on the 
solvency of the FHA as well as the administration's reform 
proposal for FHA single-family housing. The hearing took place 
at the same time as many subprime lenders were exhibiting 
considerable financial stress, with the third largest such 
lender in the Nation declaring bankruptcy.
    The crises in the subprime lending market has its roots in 
certain lenders engaging in aggressive, and sometimes 
fraudulent, marketing techniques while lowering credit 
standards--sometimes requiring little or no proof of income or 
creditworthiness on the part of borrowers. The Committee is 
concerned of the impact that the vast expansion of these 
mortgage products will now have on low and moderate-income 
working Americans for years to come.
    Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical 
role in meeting the demands of borrowers that the private 
market would not serve--creating housing products that have 
insured over 34 million homes. In the wake of this new crisis, 
the Committee believes that the FHA must reestablish itself as 
America's mortgage lender. The agency should do this, not by 
imitating the marketing and underwriting practices of some 
subprime lenders, but by working to ensure that families are 
able to purchase and stay in their homes with affordable loans 
that they fully understand.
    Unfortunately, this new challenge comes at a time when the 
FHA finances are in a particularly precarious state. FHA's 
market share has diminished significantly and the solvency of 
its insurance funds have worsened as a result. FHA is no longer 
an innovator and major player in the housing market. While a 
number of FHA's challenges can be attributed to factors outside 
its control, some of its wounds have been self-inflicted as 
identified in recent reports and testimony by the GAO and HUD 
OIG. If FHA did a better job of managing risk, its financial 
condition might improve.
    The signs of a troubled FHA have been identified in a 
number of ways since 2002--FHA has experienced a sharp decline 
in single-family loan volume with total guarantees dropping 60 
percent from $147,000,000,000 in 2003 to only $58,000,000,000 
in 2005. This is primarily due to (1) the perception among 
lenders that FHA's services are inefficient and overly 
cumbersome, (2) its flat pricing structure, and (3) its limited 
range of loan products compared to conventional mortgage 
companies. In addition, default rates and the amounts of 
insurance claims have increased even as participation in the 
program has declined. Some of these problems are attributed to 
``adverse selection'' where FHA has taken on more risky 
borrowers, such as seller-financed down-payment loans. The FHA 
Commissioner's Report from September 2006 found that, while 
endorsements dropped by 17 percent between fiscal year 2005 and 
fiscal year 2006, the default rate (90 days in arrears) 
increased from 6.36 percent to 6.63 percent. Further, loss 
mitigation activity (forbearance agreements, loan 
modifications, and partial claims) had increased by 44 percent 
between 2005 and 2006.
    In 2007, as in 2006, the administration and Congress have 
proposed a number of reforms to FHA to address the health and 
solvency of its insurance funds. While some aspects remain 
controversial, there seems to be widespread support and 
recognition that some FHA reforms are necessary. Such reforms 
will certainly be necessary if FHA is going to be able to once 
again position itself to grow its market share and meet its 
mission of allowing low-income families the opportunity to 
share in the American Dream.

                Government National Mortgage Association


           OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$8,210,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\9,530,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,530,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Government National Mortgage Association 
[GNMA] supports the Mortgage Backed Securities [MBS] program, 
which is the guarantee of timely payment of principal and 
interest to investors on the mortgage backed securities pools 
of FHA/VA/RD/PIH guaranteed loans. The mission of GNMA is to 
expand affordable housing in America by linking domestic and 
global capital markets to the Nation's housing markets.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,530,000 for 
the Office of Government National Mortgage Association. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $1,320,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level.

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              10,593,000

Budget estimate, 2008:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         100,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              11,000,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000
    Administrative expenses
                                                               9,530,000

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Rural Housing Service, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments on 
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This level is 
$100,000,000,000 more than the budget request and same as the 
fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee has included $9,530,000 
for administrative expenses.

                    Policy Development and Research


 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,520,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,570,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,570,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary establishes the vision and mission 
for the policy development and research components to carry out 
routine work activities and assignments, and monitors the 
established goals of the organization in support of HUD's 
mission and policy agenda. Coordinates the development of HUD's 
Strategic Plan, substantially participates in the Annual 
Performance Plan and Performance and Accountability Report 
processes and co-chairs the HUD Energy Action Task Force with 
the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,570,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development 
and Research. This level is the same as the budget request and 
$50,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

               OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$19,360,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\19,310,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,310,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Policy Development and Research establishes 
the Department's annual research agenda to support the research 
and evaluation of housing and other departmental initiatives to 
improve HUD effectiveness and operational efficiencies. 
Research proposals are determined through consultations with 
senior staff from each HUD program office, the Office of 
Management and Budget, Congress as well as discussion with key 
HUD stakeholders (National Housing Conference, National 
Association of Home Builders, Department of Transportation, 
Department of Education, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency, etc.) Addresses 
all inquiries regarding key housing economic information such 
as the American Housing Survey, Fair Market Rents, Median 
Family Income Limits, annual housing goals and oversight of the 
Government Sponsored Enterprises [GSEs], Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and mortgage 
market analyses.
    Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Statistics.--The Committee is 
concerned that of the population statistics that the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] uses to determine 
allocations for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program do 
not accurately reflect the populations of rapidly growing 
States. Statistics used by HUD are typically 1 year behind the 
population estimates of the State demographer, which results in 
the loss of additional tax credits for affordable housing 
projects. The Committee urges the HUD to work with State 
demographer offices to determine a more accurate and up-to-date 
population count.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,310,000 
for the Office of Policy Development and Research. This level 
is the same as the budget request and $50,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2007 level.

                        research and technology

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $50,087,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      65,040,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,040,000

                          program description

    Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research, 
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission 
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and 
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research 
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements 
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies. 
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency, 
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify 
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this 
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring 
activities and to conduct housing surveys. Funding is also 
provided for university programs to further community 
development related activities.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $59,040,000 for research, 
technology and community development activities in fiscal year 
2008. This level is $6,000,000 less than the budget request and 
$8,953,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. Of this 
funding, $5,000,000 is for the Partnership for Advancing 
Technologies in Housing [PATH] program. The Committee 
recommends $20,600,000 to carry-out university programs to 
further community development related activities as authorized 
under section 107 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974.
    The Committee recommends that activities for the 
Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative 
[PATH] shall be administered by the Office of Policy 
Development and Research.
    In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's 
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, 
the Office of Policy Development and Research is denied 
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by 
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


     OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL 
                              OPPORTUNITY

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\1,490,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,490,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Assistant Secretary is responsible for fair housing and 
civil rights policy, enforcement of the fair housing and equal 
opportunity laws within HUD's jurisdiction, and the management 
of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 
Equal Opportunity. This level is the same as the budget request 
and $240,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

        FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................  \1\$63,330,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................   \1\69,390,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,390,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is 
responsible for developing policies, guidance and for providing 
technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and 
the civil rights statues, including title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act, section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Acts, the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, section 109 of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1974, and the Age 
discrimination Act of 1975, as well as Executive orders. FHEO 
serves as the central point for the formulation, clearance and 
dissemination of FHEP policies, intra-departmental clearances, 
and public information.
    FHEO receives, investigates, conciliate and recommends the 
issuance of charges of discrimination and determinations of 
non-compliance for complaints filed under title VIII and other 
civil rights authorities and conduct civil rights compliance 
review and compliance reviews under section 3.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,390,000 
for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $6,060,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                        fair housing activities

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $45,540,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      45,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,000,000

                          program description

    The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding 
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
    The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, 
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of 
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to 
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints 
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local 
fair housing agencies.
    The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by 
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed 
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to 
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating 
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommendation provides $52,000,000 of which 
$27,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and $25,000,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program 
[FHIP]. The total is $7,000,000 more than the budget request 
and $6,460,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level.
    The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies 
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for 
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, 
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage 
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies 
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and 
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase 
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
    The practice of housing discrimination and predatory 
lending continues to be a serious concern for the Committee. 
Fair housing organizations provide vital services in protecting 
tenants by conducting testing and research activities to 
uncover fair lending violations. The Committee recommends a 
$5,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2007 level to the Fair 
Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP] to better address this 
problem. This funding boost will further enhance funding to 
fair housing organizations and other non-profit groups that 
fight discrimination and encourage integration through 
education, enforcement and capacity building activities. In 
2006, some 27,000 housing discrimination complaints were filed. 
Yet HUD has acknowledged there is much more to be done since 
only 1 percent of housing discrimination cases are reported 
each year. The Committee expects HUD to continue to direct 
enforcement money and education money to fair housing 
organizations from HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal 
Opportunity in order to adequately address housing 
discrimination, from education and outreach to community 
members, to investigative work, and intervention.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


            OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................   \1\$5,780,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    \1\6,140,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,140,000

\1\As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries 
and Expenses account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control has 
primary responsibility for the lead-based paint and healthy 
homes activities of the Department and is directly responsible 
for the administration of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 
program authorized by title X of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992; the Office also addresses multiple 
housing-related hazards affecting the health of residents, 
particularly children. The Office develops lead-based paint 
regulations, guidelines, and policies applicable to HUD 
programs, and enforces the Lead Disclosure Rule issued under 
title X. For both lead-based paint and healthy homes issues, 
the Office designs and administers programs for grants, 
training, research, education and information dissemination, 
and serves as the Department's central information source for 
the Secretary, the Congress, HUD staff, HUD grantees, State and 
local governments and the public.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,140,000 for 
the Office of the Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. This 
level is the same as the budget request and $360,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2007 level.

                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $150,480,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     116,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     151,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to 
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in 
private low-income housing. This has become a significant 
health hazard, especially for children. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000 
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in 
the late 1980's. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning 
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some 
2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated 
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $151,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2008. 
This amount is $35,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$520,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Of this 
amount, HUD may use up to $8,800,000 for the Healthy Homes 
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities 
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses.
    The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the lead hazard 
reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal 
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are 
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.
    As previously discussed, there remains significant lead 
risks in privately owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized 
low-income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million 
children under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from 
lead poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, 
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease 
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. 
In the United States, children from poor families are eight 
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income 
families. Nevertheless, the risks associated with lead-based 
paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next decade.
    The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on 
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that 
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard 
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through 
publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.
    Big Buy Program.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 to 
continue funding the Big Buy Program at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. Further, the Committee 
directs that these funds be managed by the Office of Healthy 
Homes and Lead Hazard Control. In 2001, HUD launched the Big 
Buy program to use the Department's purchasing power to 
contract for lead inspections of pre-1978 Federally subsidized 
properties that HUD determined posed the greatest likelihood of 
containing potentially hazardous levels of lead-based paint. 
The Big Buy program was initially funded with $56,000,000 and 
over 3,900 eligible properties registered to take part. The 
Committee is concerned that at this time fewer than half of 
these properties have been scheduled for testing services, and 
less than that have actually been tested and had the inspection 
report delivered. The Committee understands that HUD does not 
have the necessary funds to complete testing these properties. 
HUD informed the Committee that there are still approximately 
1,500 properties that still need to be inspected. The Committee 
provides these funds to continue the Big Buy Program 
inspections and recognizes that these funds are not sufficient 
to complete the testing that is necessary. The Committee urges 
HUD to provide sufficient funding in future year budget 
requests.

                     Management and Administration


                         salaries and expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Natuve     Indian
                                                                                                   Development  American   Housing    Native
                                                                    Direct        FHA      GNMA        Loan       Block      Loan    Hawaiian    Total
                                                                Appropriation    funds     funds    Guarantee     Grant   Guarantee    Loan
                                                                                                      funds       funds     funds      funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007..........................................       580,821    556,776    10,593         743        149        248        35  1,149,365
Budget estimate, 2008.........................................       654,092    556,776    10,700  ...........       149        248        35  1,222,000
Committee recommendation......................................     1,222,000   ........  ........  ...........  ........  .........  ........  1,222,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Salaries and expenses'' account finances all salaries 
and related expenses associated with administering the programs 
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These 
include the following activities:
    Housing and Mortgage Credit Programs.--This activity 
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with 
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer 
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales, 
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement 
procedures.
    Community Planning and Development Programs.--Funds in this 
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to 
administer community planning and development programs.
    Equal Opportunity and Research Programs.--This activity 
includes salaries and related expenses associated with 
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and 
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the 
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
    Departmental Management, Legal, and Audit Services.--This 
activity includes a variety of general functions required for 
the Department's overall administration and management. These 
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel, 
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative 
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management, 
contracting and procurement, and office services.
    Field Direction and Administration.--This activity includes 
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area 
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the 
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's 
field offices, as well as administrative support in areas such 
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and 
procurement, and office services.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends several separate appropriations 
which together total $1,222,000,000 for salaries and expenses. 
This level is the same as the budget request and $72,636,524 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee has 
eliminated all salaries and expenses transfers and replaced 
this funding mechanism with direct appropriations to specific 
salaries and expenses accounts within each HUD mission area. 
This new format will provide for a more transparent process and 
a more effective way to allocate staffing to match programmatic 
needs.
    The Committee remains concerned about HUD's ability to 
administer its programs and place staff where most needed. 
Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring 
within the Department, including justifications for any 
significant increase in FTEs for any particular office or 
activity.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees. The Committee understands that the 
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to 
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule. 
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that 
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain 
experience and advancement.
    The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly 
reports on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations. These reports shall include a list of all HUD-
related trips, the names of all staff on each trip, and all 
costs, including the individual costs of lodging, food, 
transportation and any other costs.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   FHA funds by
                                                                   Appropriation     transfer          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2007............................................     $81,852,503     $23,760,000     105,612,503
Budget estimate, 2008...........................................      88,240,000      23,760,000     112,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................     112,000,000  ..............     112,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          program description

    This appropriation will finance all salaries and related 
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the 
Inspector General [OIG].

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $112,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is the same as the budget 
request and $6,387,497 above the fiscal year 2007 level. The 
Committee does not provide for transfers of FHA funds to OIG. 
The Committee has eliminated all salaries and expenses 
transfers and replaced this funding mechanism with direct 
appropriations to specific salaries and expenses accounts 
within each HUD mission area. This new format will provide for 
a more transparent process and a more effective way to allocate 
staffing to match programmatic needs.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $195,356,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     220,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Working Capital Fund, authorized by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information 
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized 
basis.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for the Working 
Capital Fund for fiscal year 2008. These funds are $45,000,000 
less than the budget request and $20,356,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2007 level. This fund is needed to enhance 
efficient use of appropriated funds and improve budget 
projections and needs for submission of the Committees on 
Appropriations.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      66,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to 
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing 
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National 
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing 
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also 
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and 
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those 
standards.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the 
budget request and $6,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 
description follows.
    Sec. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain 
housing bonds.
    Sec. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of 
funds under the Fair Housing Act.
    Sec. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA 
funding for fiscal year 2006.
    Sec. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a 
competitive basis unless otherwise provided.
    Sec. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse 
GSEs and other Federal entities for various administrative 
expenses.
    Sec. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set 
out in the budget justification.
    Sec. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for 
entities subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 208. This section requires HUD to submit certain 
additional information as part of its annual budget 
justifications.
    Sec. 209. This section requires quarterly reports on all 
uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD 
programs.
    Sec. 210. This section makes a number of corrections to the 
award of HOPWA funding.
    Sec. 211. This section requires HUD to submit annual 
reports on the number and cost of HUD-assisted units. The 
Committee is concerned that HUD's property disposition program 
is not adequately committed to preserving the affordability of 
formerly subsidized units, and directs HUD to establish and 
submit to the Committee workable criteria for ensuring the 
maintenance of project-based section 8 wherever possible. The 
Committee also expects HUD to improve its consultation and 
coordination with units of local government and residents. HUD 
is reminded that it should use its discretionary preservation 
authority for the purpose of preserving affordability.
    Sec. 212. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal 
year 2008 budget justifications according to congressional 
requirements.
    Sec. 213. This section requires vouchers for non-elderly 
disabled families to be renewed, to the extent practicable, to 
non-elderly disabled families.
    Sec. 214. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 
Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA 
resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006. 
Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are 
required to establish advisory boards that include public 
housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 215. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer 
of existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from 
obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the 
assisted tenants.
    Sec. 216. This section provides allocation requirements for 
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 
Grant program.
    Sec. 217. This section requires vouchers for family 
unification to be renewed, to the extent practicable, for the 
family unification.
    Sec. 218. This section exempts GNMA from certain 
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
    Sec. 219. This section reforms certain section 8 rent 
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 220. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 221. This section increases FHA multifamily housing 
loan limits.
    Sec. 222. This section extends the HOPE VI program until 
September 30, 2008.
    Sec. 223. This section allows public housing authorities 
with less than 500 units the option to be exempt from 
management requirements in the operating fund rule.
    Sec. 224. This section prevents HUD from imposing certain 
restrictions on the use of capital funds by public housing 
authorities.
    Sec. 225. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to 
the Appropriations Committees on the status of all section 8 
project-based housing units, including all units preserved or 
lost as section 8 project-based housing.
    Sec. 226. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to 
the appropriations committees on the use of all sole source 
contracting by HUD.
    Sec. 227. This section allows existing energy performance 
contracts between public housing authorities and third parties 
to be extended.
    Sec. 228. This section includes Alaska Pubic Housing Agency 
as a Moving-to-Work Agency.
    Sec. 229. This section provides technical corrections to 
economic development initiatives included in previous 
appropriations acts.
    Sec. 230. This section expands the availability of Home 
Equity Conversion Mortgage without limit during 2008.
    Sec. 231. This section clarifies that the Housing Authority 
of Baltimore City has and will continue to carry the Moving-to-
Work program designation.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $5,915,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       6,150,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,150,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board 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 Board is also responsible for 
developing standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation 
Act for accessible electronic and information technology used 
by Federal agencies. The Access Board also enforces the 
Architectural Barriers Act. In addition, the Board provides 
training and technical assistance on the guidelines and 
standards it develops to Government agencies, public and 
private organizations, individuals and businesses on the 
removal of accessibility barriers.
    In 2002, the Access Board was given additional 
responsibilities under the Help America Vote Act. The Board 
serves on the Board of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines 
Development Committee, which helps Election Assistance 
Commission develop voluntary guidelines and guidance for voting 
systems, including accessibility for people with disabilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,150,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 
the funding level requested by the administration and $235,000 
more than the fiscal year 2007 level.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $20,428,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      22,322,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,322,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent 
regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 
(Public Law 98-237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act 
of 1998 (Public Law 105-258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine 
Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 
1988 (Public Law 100-418); and Public Law 89-777.
    FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 
United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for 
licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and 
assuring that vessel owners or operators establish financial 
responsibility to pay judgments for death or injury to 
passengers, or nonperformance of a cruise, on voyages from U.S. 
ports. Major program areas for 2006 are: carrying out 
investigations of foreign trade practices under the Foreign 
Shipping Practices Act; maintaining equitable trading 
conditions in U.S. ocean commerce; ensuring compliance with 
applicable shipping statutes; pursuing an active enforcement 
program designed to identify and prosecute violators of the 
shipping statutes; and reviewing ocean carrier operational and 
pricing agreements to guard against excessively anticompetitive 
effects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee includes $22,322,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 
2008. This amount is the same as the budget request and 
$1,894,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................     $79,338,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................      83,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      84,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Initially established along with the Department of 
Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board 
[NTSB] commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent 
Federal agency. The board is charged by Congress with 
investigating every civil aviation accident in the United 
States as well as significant accidents in the other modes of 
transportation--railroad, highway, marine and pipeline--and 
issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future 
accidents. Although it has always operated independently, NTSB 
relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the 
Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-633) 
severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 
1975.
    In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is 
responsible for maintaining the Government's database of civil 
aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of 
transportation safety issues of national significance. 
Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international 
treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve as U.S. 
Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 
involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or 
major components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the 
``court of appeals'' for any airman, mechanic or mariner 
whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA] or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or 
when civil penalties are assessed by FAA.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $84,500,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is $1,500,000 more than the 
budget request and $5,162,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level. The Committee has included $1,500,000 more than 
the budget request to allow the agency to hire an additional 11 
investigative staff. Since fiscal year 2005, staffing at NTSB 
has been reduced from 418 positions to 396. As a result, the 
NTSB is lacking engineers, investigators, technicians and 
specialists in the areas of highways, pipelines, rail, research 
and engineering and aviation. The Committee instructs the 
agency to use additional funding provided to hire personnel in 
the most critical areas in order to enable the agency to 
continue to perform its investigative duties with the critical 
expertise needed.
    NTSB Academy.--In 2001, the National Transportation Safety 
Board entered into an illegal multi-year lease for its new 
training facility without sufficient funding to cover the cost 
of the lease. Consequently, the NTSB reported an Anti-
deficiency Act violation to the President and Congress on 
December 19, 2003.
    The annual operating costs of the training center continue 
to be a drain on the NTSB's resources and divert needed funds 
away from the Board's central missions of accident 
investigations and the issuance of safety recommendations. In 
the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 
2006 (Public Law 109-443), Congress sought to address this 
problem by mandating that NTSB prepare a utilization plan on 
how the Board would make the academy's operations self-
sufficient. The act further charges the Board to implement the 
plan with the goal of making the academy's operations self-
sufficient within 2 years of the date of enactment of the act--
or no later than December 21, 2008.
    The Committee has included bill language that gives the 
NTSB the authority to continue to make lease payments on the 
NTSB academy facility. However, this authority is limited to 
fiscal year 2008 only. The NTSB sent its final utilization plan 
to Congress in June, and as part of that plan, it expects to 
award a contract in the fall to an entity that will serve as a 
partner in running the academy. The Committee will be closely 
monitoring the implementation of this plan, as well as the 
Board's financial data that will indicate if the NTSB is 
successfully reducing the financial burden of the academy.
    Most Wanted Safety Recommendations.--As a result of its 
investigative work and the studies it conducts, the Board makes 
recommendations to industry, Federal agencies and the States 
for actions that they can take to improve transportation 
safety. Every year, the Board prioritizes some of these 
recommendations on its ``Most Wanted'' list. This list 
encompasses all the recommendations that the agency believes 
have the most potential to improve safety, reduce accidents and 
injuries and save lives. This list is an important tool that 
the Committee uses to understand critical transportation safety 
concerns, as well as to evaluate the agencies' responsiveness 
to critical safety issues. The Committee therefore directs the 
Board to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations the ``Most Wanted'' recommendation list when it 
is updated annually. The Board is further directed to notify 
the Committees when the status of a recommendation has changed.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007....................................    $116,820,000
Budget estimate, 2008...................................     119,800,000
Committee recommendation................................     119,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation now operates under the trade name ``NeighborWorks 
America.'' NeighborWorks America helps local communities 
establish efficient and effective partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as 
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing 
associations.
    Collectively, these organizations are known as the 
NeighborWorks network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks 
organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban and rural 
communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $119,800,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal year 2008. This 
amount is the same as the budget request and $2,980,000 above 
the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee continues to support 
the set-aside of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing 
initiative, which has been successful in developing innovative 
approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing 
throughout the Nation. The Committee directs NRC to provide a 
status report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2009 budget 
justifications.
    Homeownership Counseling.--The Committee applauds the 
important work that NRC is doing in addressing the many 
challenges facing homeowners today, especially as the number of 
foreclosures continues to rise. In an effort to create educated 
borrowers, NRC educated and counseled over 84,000 people and 
assisted more than 16,500 individuals and families of modest 
means to achieve homeownership in fiscal year 2006. The success 
of these efforts in providing housing education and 
homeownership counseling is demonstrated in the improved loan 
performance of families assisted by NRC organizations. Using 
its experience in this area, NRC, with a consortium of 
nonprofit and industry partners developed national standards 
for homeownership educators and counselors. These standards 
should help improve the quality and consistency of counseling 
that homeowners receive.
    Foreclosure Prevention Efforts.--The NeighborWorks Center 
for Foreclosure Solutions is a partnership between nonprofit, 
financial, mortgage, and insurance sectors that works to 
preserve homeownership and prevent foreclosures across the 
country. The Center established a national toll-free hotline, 
which is operated by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation 
of Chicago. Through this hotline, which served 25,000 families 
in 2006, at-risk homeowners are offered over-the-phone 
counseling or referrals to organizations that can provide in-
person counseling for those who need additional assistance. The 
Committee supports the efforts of NRC to help homeowners avoid 
foreclosure and sustain the gains that have been made in 
increasing homeownership and reviving neighborhoods around the 
country.
    Rural Areas.--The Committee also continues to support 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation's efforts in building 
capacity in rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to 
continue its efforts in addressing the needs of rural 
communities.

           United States Interagency Council on Homelessness


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007....................................      $1,787,971
Budget estimate, 2008...................................       2,320,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,300,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple 
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The 
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist 
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce 
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs 
and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government 
as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists 
of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of 
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, 
Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 
Labor, and Transportation; and other entities as deemed 
appropriate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,300,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. 
This amount is $512,029 more than the fiscal year 2007 level 
and $20,000 less than the budget request. These funds are for 
carrying out the functions authorized under section 203 of the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Bill language is 
included that extends the reauthorization for the ICH until 
October 1, 2008.
    The Committee continues to support the mission of ICH and 
its efforts to end homelessness. The agency has a critical role 
to play in coordinating the efforts of Federal agencies to 
address the needs of the Nation's homeless in a comprehensive 
nature. In 2002, the administration set a goal to end chronic 
homelessness in 10 years. If the administration is to be 
successful in achieving this goal by 2012, it will take the 
efforts and resources of Federal, State, and local governments. 
ICH has been successful in engaging States and cities across 
the Nation in responding to the needs of the homeless, which is 
evident in the development of over 300 10-year plans to end 
homelessness across the country. However, it is unclear whether 
all Federal agencies are fully participating in this effort. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the ICH to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the 
progress in meeting the goal to end chronic homelessness in 10 
years. This report should include specifics on how efforts by 
both local and Federal agencies will enable the achievement of 
this goal. This report should be submitted by no later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this act.
    Staffing.--The Committee believes that regional 
coordinators are important to assisting communities in 
developing and carrying out 10-year plans to end homelessness. 
Therefore, the Committee has included funding to support two 
additional regional coordinator positions, as requested. The 
Committee also believes that additional efforts must be taken 
to ensure improved efforts on the Federal level. As such, it is 
the intent of the Committee that the special advisor position 
requested be used to improve Federal coordination efforts and 
policy development related to homelessness in the United 
States.
    Travel.--The Committee is concerned by the requested 
increase in the travel budget for fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee understands that this increase is associated with the 
additional regional coordinator positions. However, while the 
Committee recognizes that the travel budget for the Executive 
Director has been decreased in the fiscal year 2008 request, 
the Committee still believes that it is too high. Therefore the 
travel budget for ICH is limited to $143,642, which is $20,000 
less than the requested level. The reduction to the travel 
budget should be taken out of the allocation for the Executive 
Director, since the Committee believes that increased time and 
efforts should be spent coordinating Federal agencies.

                                TITLE IV

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT

    Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within 
appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations 
acts.
    Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-
Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings 
funded in this act.
    Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal 
year and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so 
provided herein.
    Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service 
through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a 
matter of public record and available for public inspection.
    Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and 
specifies the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by 
this act.
    Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances 
may remain available for certain purposes.
    Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this 
act to report information regarding all sole source contracts.
    Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee 
training unless such training bears directly upon the 
performance of official duties.
    Section 409 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
funds for eminent domain unless such taking is employed for 
public use.
    Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred 
without express authority.
    Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees 
who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the 
Armed Forces.
    Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not 
in compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity 
convicted of violating the Buy American Act.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not 
covered under this rule, but reports this information in the 
spirit of full disclosure.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal 
year 2008:

                 Title I--Department of Transportation

    Federal Aviation Administration:
        Operations
        Facilities and Equipment
        Research, Engineering and Development
        Grants-in-Aid for Airports
    Federal Railroad Administration:
        Safety and Operations
        Railroad Research and Development
        Grants to the National Passenger Railroad Corp
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
        Administrative Expenses
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration:
        Research and Development
    Surface Transportation Board

         Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Rental Assistance:
        Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses
        Section 441 Contracts
        Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family 
Unification
        Contract Administrators
        Public Housing Capital Fund
        Public Housing Operating Fund
    Native American Housing Block Grants:
        Native American Housing Block Grants
        Federal Guarantees
    Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
    Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
    Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
    Rural Housing and Economics Development
    Community Development Fund:
        Community Development Block Grants
        Economic Development Initiatives
        Neighborhood Initiatives
    HOME Program:
        HOME Investment Partnership
        Downpayment Assistance Initiative
    HOPE VI
    Brownfields Redevelopment
    Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity:
        Capacity Building
        Housing Assistance Council
        Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
        National Housing Development Corporation
        Homeless Assistance Grants
        Housing for the Elderly
        Housing for Persons with Disabilities
    FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:
        Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
        Limitation on Direct Loans
        Credit Subsidy
        Administrative Expenses
    GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program 
Account:
        Limitation on Guaranteed Loans
        Administrative Expenses
        Policy Development and Research
        Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program
        Lead Hazards Reduction Program
        Salaries and Expenses

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 12, 2007, 
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 1789) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
with the bill subject to amendment and subject to the budget 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being 
present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 8--LOW-INCOME HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and 
                    tenant-based assistance grants for projects

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(m) Funding

    (1) Authorization of appropriations

            There are authorized to be appropriated for grants 
        under this section $574,000,000 for fiscal year [2003] 
        2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2007] September 30, 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



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,] 2008, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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, [2007] 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                       ``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--
            [``(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(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) * * *
            [```(1)
            ```(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) * * *
            ```(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ```(3) * * *
                    ```(A)(i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    ```(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) * * *
            ```(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ```(3) * * *
                    [```(i)
                    ```(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) * * *
                    ```
                    [```(i)
                    ```(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--
            [```(1)
            ```(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) * * *
            [```(1)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ```(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



``SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

    ``(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``(e) Operating Fund.--
            ``(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(2) Formula.--
                    ``(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    ``(C) Treatment of savings.--
                            ``(i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            ``(iii) Term of contract.--The 
                        total term of a contract described in 
                        clause (i) shall not exceed 20 years to 
                        allow longer payback periods for 
                        retrofits, including windows, heating 
                        system replacements, wall insulation, 
                        site-based generation, advanced energy 
                        savings technologies, including 
                        renewable energy generation, and other 
                        such retrofits.
                            (iv) Existing contracts.--The term 
                        of a contract described in clause (i) 
                        that, as of the date of enactment of 
                        this clause, is in repayment and has a 
                        term of not more than 12 years, may be 
                        extended to a term of not more than 20 
                        years to permit additional energy 
                        conservation improvements without 
                        requiring the reprocurement of energy 
                        performance contractors.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


FOURTH FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1986, PUBLIC LAW 99-190

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (e) Such amounts as may be necessary for projects or 
activities provided for in the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, at a rate for 
operations and to the extent and in the manner provided for in 
the following Act; this subsection shall be effective as if it 
had been enacted into law as the regular appropriations Act:

 An Act making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, and for 
                            other purposes.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Budget authority               Outlays
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Committee    Amount of    Committee    Amount of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the budget resolution
 for 2008: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
 Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Discretionary...........................................       51,063       51.063      114,627   \1\114,621
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2008....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\43,606
    2009....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       31,620
    2010....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       14,643
    2011....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,499
    2012 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,952
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       27,052           NA       27,870
 2008.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2008
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2007         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2007
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................           84,552            96,197            95,197           +10,645            -1,000
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (2,191)  ................           (2,314)            (+123)          (+2,314)
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................             (697)  ................             (737)             (+40)            (+737)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (15,148)  ................          (18,719)          (+3,571)         (+18,719)
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy          (11,635)  ................          (11,874)            (+239)         (+11,874)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.           (8,465)  ................          (10,417)          (+1,952)         (+10,417)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,291)  ................           (2,384)             (+93)          (+2,384)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (21,880)  ................          (24,008)          (+2,128)         (+24,008)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (1,908)  ................           (1,988)             (+80)          (+1,988)
    Executive Secretariat.....................................           (1,441)  ................           (1,535)             (+94)          (+1,535)
    Board of Contract Appeals.................................             (696)  ................  ................            (-696)  ................
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,264)  ................           (1,335)             (+71)          (+1,335)
    Office of Intelligence and Security.......................           (2,041)  ................  ................          (-2,041)  ................
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................          (11,801)  ................          (11,587)            (-214)         (+11,587)
    Office of emergency transportation........................           (3,089)  ................  ................          (-3,089)  ................
    Office of Intelligence Security and Emergency Response....  ................  ................           (8,299)          (+8,299)          (+8,299)
    Undesignated pay raise....................................             (501)  ................  ................            (-501)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (84,552)          (96,197)          (95,197)         (+10,645)          (-1,000)

Office of Civil Rights........................................            8,527             9,141             9,141              +614   ................
Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers............          -50,000           -22,000           -22,000           +28,000   ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............           14,893             9,115            14,115              -778            +5,000
Working capital fund..........................................         (118,014)  ................         (128,094)         (+10,080)        (+128,094)
Minority business resource center program.....................              893               891               891                -2   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,367)          (18,367)          (18,367)  ................  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            2,970             2,970             2,970   ................  ................
New headquarters building.....................................           49,500   ................  ................          -49,500   ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........           59,400   ................           60,000              +600           +60,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................          170,735            96,314           160,314           -10,421           +64,000

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        8,374,217   ................        8,761,783          +387,566        +8,761,783
    Air traffic organization..................................       (6,704,223)  ................       (6,964,813)        (+260,590)      (+6,964,813)
    Aviation Safety...........................................         (997,718)  ................       (1,092,103)         (+94,385)      (+1,092,103)
    Commercial Space Transportation...........................          (11,641)  ................          (12,837)          (+1,196)         (+12,837)
    Financial Services........................................          (76,175)  ................         (103,849)         (+27,674)        (+103,849)
    Human Resource Management.................................          (85,313)  ................          (91,214)          (+5,901)         (+91,214)
    Region and Center Operations..............................         (275,156)  ................         (290,872)         (+15,716)        (+290,872)
    Staff Offices.............................................         (144,617)  ................         (166,542)         (+21,925)        (+166,542)
    Information Services......................................          (35,907)  ................          (39,552)          (+3,645)         (+39,552)
    Undistributed pay raise...................................          (43,467)  ................  ................         (-43,467)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (8,374,217)  ................       (8,761,783)        (+387,566)      (+8,761,783)

Safety and Operations.........................................  ................        1,879,453   ................  ................       -1,879,453
Air Traffic Organization......................................  ................        9,307,896   ................  ................       -9,307,896
Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)..........        2,516,920   ................        2,516,920   ................       +2,516,920
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway              130,234           140,000           148,800           +18,566            +8,800
 Trust Fund)..................................................

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)           (4,399,000)       (4,300,000)       (4,399,000)  ................         (+99,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (3,514,500)       (2,750,000)       (3,514,500)  ................        (+764,500)
    Small community air service development program...........          (10,000)  ................          (10,000)  ................         (+10,000)
    Airport Cooperative Research Program......................          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
    Airport Technology Research...............................          (17,870)          (18,712)          (18,712)            (+842)  ................
    2007 F&E Pop-up contract authority........................          596,000   ................  ................         -596,000   ................
    Rescission of contract authority (BY F&E Pop-up)..........         -596,000   ................  ................         +596,000   ................
    Rescission of contract authority (prior yr Pop-up)........          -25,000   ................         -185,500          -160,500          -185,500
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (3,489,500)       (2,750,000)       (3,329,000)        (-160,500)        (+579,000)

War risk insurance program extension..........................          -29,000   ................         -164,000          -135,000          -164,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................       10,967,371        11,327,349        11,078,003          +110,632          -249,346
          Appropriations......................................      (11,588,371)      (11,327,349)      (11,263,503)        (-324,868)         (-63,846)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................        (-621,000)  ................        (-185,500)        (+435,500)        (-185,500)
          Limitations on obligations).........................       (3,514,500)       (2,750,000)       (3,514,500)  ................        (+764,500)
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (14,481,871)      (14,077,349)      (14,592,503)        (+110,632)        (+515,154)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (360,992)         (384,556)         (377,556)         (+16,564)          (-7,000)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (36,032,344)      (38,000,000)      (40,965,051)      (+4,932,707)      (+2,965,051)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (39,086,465)      (39,585,075)      (40,216,051)      (+1,129,586)        (+630,976)
    (Exempt contract authority)...............................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
    (Transfer to NHTSA).......................................        (-121,232)  ................  ................        (+121,232)  ................
Congestion reduction initiative (leg. proposal)...............  ................         (175,000)  ................  ................        (-175,000)
Pay raise (Sec. 111 of Public Law110-5).......................            2,794   ................  ................           -2,794   ................
Appalachian development highway system........................           19,800   ................           20,000              +200           +20,000
Delta Regional Authority......................................  ................  ................           20,000           +20,000           +20,000
Rescission of contract authority (Hwy Trust Fund).............       -3,471,582        -1,317,000        -2,890,000          +581,582        -1,573,000
Rescission of exempt contract authority (HTF).................  ................          -52,000   ................  ................          +52,000
Miscellaneous appropriations (rescission).....................  ................         -149,000   ................  ................         +149,000
Miscellaneous highway trust funds (rescission)................  ................         -260,469   ................  ................         +260,469
2008 rescission of revenue-aligned budget authority...........  ................         -630,976   ................  ................         +630,976
Administration (rescission of contract authority).............  ................  ................          -43,359           -43,359           -43,359
TIFIA (rescission of contract authority)......................  ................  ................         -187,146          -187,146          -187,146
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................       -3,448,988        -2,409,445        -3,080,505          +368,483          -671,060
          Appropriations......................................          (22,594)  ................          (40,000)         (+17,406)         (+40,000)
          Rescissions.........................................  ................      (-1,040,445)  ................  ................      (+1,040,445)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-3,471,582)      (-1,369,000)      (-3,120,505)        (+351,077)      (-1,751,505)
          Limitations on obligations).........................      (39,086,465)      (39,585,075)      (40,216,051)      (+1,129,586)        (+630,976)
          Exempt contract authority)..........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
          Transfer out).......................................        (-121,232)  ................  ................        (+121,232)  ................
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (36,255,245)      (37,914,630)      (37,874,546)      (+1,619,301)         (-40,084)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust            (223,000)         (228,000)         (231,470)          (+8,470)          (+3,470)
 Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization)................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (223,000)         (228,000)         (231,470)          (+8,470)          (+3,470)
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation          (294,000)         (300,000)         (300,000)          (+6,000)  ................
 of contract authorization)...................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (294,000)         (300,000)         (300,000)          (+6,000)  ................
    Rescission of contract authority..........................  ................  ................          -11,260           -11,260           -11,260
National Motor Carrier Safety Program (HTF): Rescission of      ................  ................           -5,213            -5,213            -5,213
 contract authority...........................................
Motor Carrier Safety (HTF): Rescission of contract authority..  ................  ................          -32,188           -32,188           -32,188
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin...............  ................  ................          -48,661           -48,661           -48,661
      (Limitations on obligations)............................         (517,000)         (528,000)         (531,470)         (+14,470)          (+3,470)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)........................  ................  ................          124,406          +124,406          +124,406
Operations and research (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of           (107,750)         (229,750)         (107,750)  ................        (-122,000)
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (107,750)         (229,750)         (107,750)  ................        (-122,000)
    (Transfer from FHWA)......................................         (121,232)  ................  ................        (-121,232)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.......................         (228,982)         (229,750)         (232,156)          (+3,174)          (+2,406)

National Driver Register (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of            (4,000)           (4,000)           (4,000)  ................  ................
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................           (4,000)           (4,000)           (4,000)  ................  ................
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund)                     (587,750)         (599,250)         (599,250)         (+11,500)  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations):
        Highway safety programs (Sec. 402)....................         (220,000)         (225,000)         (225,000)          (+5,000)  ................
        Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405).......          (25,000)          (25,000)          (25,000)  ................  ................
        Safety belt performance grants (Sec. 406).............         (124,500)         (124,500)         (124,500)  ................  ................
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec.          (125,000)         (131,000)         (131,000)          (+6,000)  ................
         410).................................................
        State traffic safety information system improvement             (34,500)          (34,500)          (34,500)  ................  ................
         grants (Sec. 408)....................................
        High visibility enforcement...........................          (29,000)          (29,000)          (29,000)  ................  ................
        Child safety and booster seat grants..................           (6,000)           (6,000)           (6,000)  ................  ................
        Motorcyclist safety...................................           (6,000)           (6,000)           (6,000)  ................  ................
        Grant administration..................................          (17,750)          (18,250)          (18,250)            (+500)  ................
    Operations and Research: Rescission of contract authority.  ................  ................          -12,197           -12,197           -12,197
    National Driver Register: Rescission of contract authority  ................  ................             -120              -120              -120
    National Highway Traffic Safety Grants: Rescission of       ................  ................          -10,529           -10,529           -10,529
     contract authority.......................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (587,750)         (599,250)         (576,404)         (-11,346)         (-22,846)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin............  ................  ................          101,560          +101,560          +101,560
          (Limitations on obligations)........................         (699,500)         (833,000)         (711,000)         (+11,500)        (-122,000)
          (by transfer).......................................         (121,232)  ................  ................        (-121,232)  ................
          Total budgetary resources...........................         (820,732)         (833,000)         (812,560)          (-8,172)         (-20,440)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................          150,271           148,472           151,186              +915            +2,714
Railroad research and development.............................           34,524            32,250            36,250            +1,726            +4,000
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program (leg proposal).........  ................          100,000   ................  ................         -100,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment (rescission)...............  ................           -9,000   ................  ................           +9,000
Capital assistance to States--Intercity Passenger Rail Service  ................  ................          100,000          +100,000          +100,000

            National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger             490,050   ................          485,000            -5,050          +485,000
 Corporation..................................................
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.          772,200           500,000           885,000          +112,800          +385,000
Efficiency incentive grants to National Railroad Passenger               31,300           300,000   ................          -31,300          -300,000
 Corporation..................................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation..........        1,293,550           800,000         1,370,000           +76,450          +570,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................        1,478,345         1,071,722         1,657,436          +179,091          +585,714
          Appropriations......................................       (1,478,345)       (1,080,722)       (1,657,436)        (+179,091)        (+576,714)
          Rescissions.........................................  ................          (-9,000)  ................  ................          (+9,000)

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses, general fund.........................           85,000            89,300            88,795            +3,795              -505
    Office of the Administrator...............................           (1,063)  ................             (910)            (-153)            (+910)
    Office of Chief Counsel...................................           (4,273)  ................           (4,545)            (+272)          (+4,545)
    Office of Civil Rights....................................           (3,272)  ................           (3,235)             (-37)          (+3,235)
    Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs........           (1,394)  ................           (1,480)             (+86)          (+1,480)
    Office of Budget and Policy...............................           (9,259)  ................          (10,858)          (+1,599)         (+10,858)
    Office of Planning........................................           (4,718)  ................           (4,458)            (-260)          (+4,458)
    Office of Program Management..............................           (8,403)  ................           (8,741)            (+338)          (+8,741)
    Office of Demonstration and Innovation....................           (4,876)  ................           (4,944)             (+68)          (+4,944)
    Office of Administration..................................           (7,654)  ................           (6,354)          (-1,300)          (+6,354)
    Central Account...........................................          (17,668)  ................          (20,719)          (+3,051)         (+20,719)
    Regional offices..........................................          (22,420)  ................          (22,551)            (+131)         (+22,551)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (85,000)          (89,300)          (88,795)          (+3,795)            (-505)

Formula and Bus Grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit             (7,262,775)       (7,871,895)       (7,872,893)        (+610,118)            (+998)
 Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
Formula and Bus Grants (rescission)...........................  ................  ................          -28,661           -28,661           -28,661
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..................................................       (7,262,775)       (7,871,895)       (7,844,232)        (+581,457)         (-27,663)

Research and University Research Centers......................           61,000            61,000            65,500            +4,500            +4,500
Trust fund share of expenses (Mass Transit Account, HTF)             (4,660,000)       (6,855,000)       (6,855,000)      (+2,195,000)  ................
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
Capital investment grants.....................................        1,566,000         1,399,818         1,566,000   ................         +166,182
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        1,712,000         1,550,118         1,691,634           -20,366          +141,516
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (7,262,775)       (7,871,895)       (7,872,893)        (+610,118)            (+998)
      Total budgetary resources...............................       (8,974,775)       (9,422,013)       (9,564,527)        (+589,752)        (+142,514)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           16,223            17,392            17,392            +1,169   ................

                    Maritime Administration

Maritime security program.....................................          154,440           154,440           156,000            +1,560            +1,560
Operations and training.......................................          111,522           115,276           122,891           +11,369            +7,615
Ship disposal.................................................           20,790            20,000            18,000            -2,790            -2,000
Assistance for small shipyards................................  ................  ................           20,000           +20,000           +20,000
Vessel operations revolving fund..............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
War risk insurance revolving fund.............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses...................................            4,085   ................            3,408              -677            +3,408
    Fund admin expenses with takedowns (leg. proposal)........  ................           (3,408)  ................  ................          (-3,408)
    Guarantee loans subsidy...................................  ................  ................           10,000           +10,000           +10,000
National defense tank vessel program (rescission).............          -74,400   ................  ................          +74,400   ................
Alteration of bridges.........................................  ................            5,650   ................  ................           -5,650
Ship construction (rescission)................................           -2,000   ................           -4,615            -2,615            -4,615
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..........................          214,437           295,366           325,684          +111,247           +30,318
          Appropriations......................................         (290,837)         (295,366)         (330,299)         (+39,462)         (+34,933)
          Rescissions.........................................         (-76,400)  ................          (-4,615)         (+71,785)          (-4,615)

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous materials safety....................................           26,723            27,003            27,003              +280   ................
Administrative expenses.......................................           18,031            17,491            17,491              -540   ................
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................  ................              639               639              +639   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (44,754)          (45,133)          (45,133)            (+379)  ................

Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           60,065            55,770            63,594            +3,529            +7,824
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................           14,850            18,810            18,810            +3,960   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (74,915)          (74,580)          (82,404)          (+7,489)          (+7,824)

Emergency preparedness grants:
    Emergency preparedness fund...............................              198               188               188               -10   ................
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.................          (14,798)          (28,318)          (28,318)         (+13,520)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                    134,665           148,219           156,043           +21,378            +7,824
       Administration.........................................

       Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development......................................            7,736            12,000            12,000            +4,264   ................

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           64,043            66,400            66,400            +2,357   ................

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           26,313            23,085            25,000            -1,313            +1,915
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.....................           25,063            21,835            23,750            -1,313            +1,915
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Transportation............       11,326,832        12,168,952        12,132,732          +805,900           -36,220
          Appropriations......................................      (15,545,814)      (14,609,397)      (15,565,520)         (+19,706)        (+956,123)
          Rescissions.........................................        (-126,400)      (-1,071,445)         (-55,276)         (+71,124)      (+1,016,169)
          Rescission of contract authority....................      (-4,092,582)      (-1,369,000)      (-3,377,512)        (+715,070)      (-2,008,512)
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (51,080,240)      (51,571,378)      (52,845,914)      (+1,765,674)      (+1,274,536)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
          (By transfer).......................................         (121,232)  ................  ................        (-121,232)  ................
          (Transfer out)......................................        (-121,232)  ................  ................        (+121,232)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (63,146,072)      (64,479,330)      (65,717,646)      (+2,571,574)      (+1,238,316)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Transportation discretionary total......................       11,326,832        12,168,952        12,132,732          +805,900           -36,220
                                                               =========================================================================================
     TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................  ................  ................            3,930            +3,930            +3,930

                     Executive Operations

Salaries and expenses:
    Office of Hearings and Appeals............................  ................  ................            1,490            +1,490            +1,490
    Office of Small and Disadvantages Business Utilization....  ................  ................              510              +510              +510
    Office of Chief Financial Officer.........................  ................  ................           43,750           +43,750           +43,750
    Office of General Counsel.................................  ................  ................           86,820           +86,820           +86,820
    Office of Chief Procurement Officer.......................  ................  ................           13,500           +13,500           +13,500
    Center for Faith-Based Initiatives........................  ................  ................            1,860            +1,860            +1,860
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and     ................  ................            2,670            +2,670            +2,670
     Intergovernmental Relations..............................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs......  ................  ................            2,630            +2,630            +2,630
    Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.......  ................  ................            3,440            +3,440            +3,440
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations.............................  ................  ................          156,670          +156,670          +156,670

                   Administrative Activities

Salaries and expenses:
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......  ................  ................            1,480            +1,480            +1,480
    Administration salaries and expenses......................  ................  ................          252,010          +252,010          +252,010
    Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination........  ................  ................           12,520           +12,520           +12,520
    Office of Field Policy and Management.....................  ................  ................           47,730           +47,730           +47,730
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Activities........................  ................  ................          313,740          +313,740          +313,740

                   Public and Indian Housing

Salaries and expenses:
    Assistant Secretary For Public and Indian Housing.........  ................  ................            1,620            +1,620            +1,620
    Housing salaries and expenses.............................  ................  ................          188,340          +188,340          +188,340
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, salaries and expenses............................  ................  ................          189,960          +189,960          +189,960

Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
    Renewals..................................................       14,443,200        14,437,506        14,936,200          +493,000          +498,694
    Tenant protection vouchers................................          149,300           150,000           150,000              +700   ................
    Family self-sufficiency coordinators......................           47,500            48,000            50,000            +2,500            +2,000
    Administrative fees.......................................        1,281,100         1,351,000         1,351,000           +69,900   ................
    Incremental family unification vouchers...................  ................  ................           30,000           +30,000           +30,000
    Veterans affairs supportive housing.......................  ................  ................           75,000           +75,000           +75,000
    Working capital fund......................................            5,900             6,494             6,494              +594   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................      (15,927,000)      (15,993,000)      (16,598,694)        (+671,694)        (+605,694)

    Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109-148).............  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Advance appropriations....................................        4,193,000         4,200,000         4,200,000            +7,000   ................
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............       -4,200,000        -4,193,000        -4,193,000            +7,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based rental assistance...................       15,920,000        16,000,000        16,795,654          +875,654          +795,654

Project-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................        5,829,303         5,522,810         5,522,810          -306,493   ................
    Contract administrators...................................          145,728           286,230           286,230          +140,502   ................
    Working capital fund......................................            1,386             3,960             3,960            +2,574   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based rental assistance..................        5,976,417         5,813,000         5,813,000          -163,417   ................

Public Housing Capital Fund...................................        2,438,964         2,024,000         2,500,000           +61,036          +476,000
Public Housing Operating Fund.................................        3,864,000         4,000,000         4,200,000          +336,000          +200,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing..........           99,000   ................          100,000            +1,000          +100,000
    Rescission................................................  ................          -99,000   ................  ................          +99,000
Native American housing block grants..........................          623,700           626,965           630,000            +6,300            +3,035
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account............            6,000             7,450             7,450            +1,450   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (116,276)         (367,000)         (367,000)        (+250,724)  ................
Native Hawaiian housing block grant...........................            8,727             5,940             9,000              +273            +3,060
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account...........              891             1,044             1,044              +153   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (35,714)          (41,504)          (41,504)          (+5,790)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing........................       28,937,699        28,379,399        30,056,148        +1,118,449        +1,676,749

              Community Planning and Development

Salaries and expenses:
    Assistant Secretary for Community and Planning Development  ................  ................            1,520            +1,520            +1,520
    Community Planning and Development salaries and expenses..  ................  ................           93,770           +93,770           +93,770
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses............................  ................  ................           95,290           +95,290           +95,290

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS...................          286,110           300,100           300,100           +13,990   ................
Rural housing and economic development........................           16,830   ................           17,000              +170           +17,000
Community development fund....................................        3,771,900         3,036,570         4,060,000          +288,100        +1,023,430
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (137,500)  ................         (275,000)        (+137,500)        (+275,000)
    Credit subsidy............................................            2,970   ................            6,000            +3,030            +6,000
    Administrative expenses...................................              743   ................  ................             -743   ................
Brownfields redevelopment.....................................            9,900   ................           10,000              +100           +10,000
HOME investment partnerships program..........................        1,757,250         1,966,640         1,970,000          +212,750            +3,360
Homeless assistance grants....................................        1,441,600         1,585,990         1,585,990          +144,390   ................
Self-help homeownership opportunity program...................           49,390            69,700            70,000           +20,610              +300
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Community Planning and Development.................        7,336,693         6,959,000         8,114,380          +777,687        +1,155,380

                       Housing Programs

Salaries and expenses:
    Office of the Assistant Secretary For Housing, Federal      ................  ................            3,420            +3,420            +3,420
     Housing Commissioner.....................................
    Housing salaries and expenses.............................  ................  ................          351,560          +351,560          +351,560
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses............................  ................  ................          354,980          +354,980          +354,980

Housing for the elderly.......................................          734,580           575,000           735,000              +420          +160,000
Housing for persons with disabilities.........................          236,610           125,000           237,000              +390          +112,000
Housing counseling assistance.................................  ................           50,000   ................  ................          -50,000
Manufactured housing fees trust fund..........................           13,000            16,000            16,000            +3,000   ................
    Offsetting collections....................................          -13,000           -13,000           -13,000   ................  ................
    Offsetting collections (legislative proposal).............  ................           -3,000            -3,000            -3,000   ................
Rental housing assistance.....................................           26,136            27,600            27,600            +1,464   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, Housing Programs...................................          997,326           777,600         1,354,580          +357,254          +576,980

                Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................     (185,000,000)     (185,000,000)     (185,000,000)  ................  ................
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (50,000)          (50,000)          (50,000)  ................  ................
    Administrative expenses...................................          351,450           351,450   ................         -351,450          -351,450
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -176,000   ................  ................         +176,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..........................           61,974            77,400            77,400           +15,426   ................

FHA--General and special risk program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................      (45,000,000)      (35,000,000)      (45,000,000)  ................     (+10,000,000)
    (Limitation on direct loans)..............................          (50,000)          (50,000)          (50,000)  ................  ................
    Administrative expenses...................................          229,086           229,086   ................         -229,086          -229,086
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -476,000          -230,000          -230,000          +246,000   ................
    Credit subsidy............................................            8,712             8,600             8,600              -112   ................
    Right of first refusal....................................  ................  ................            5,000            +5,000            +5,000
    Non-overhead administrative expenses......................           71,181            78,111            78,111            +6,930   ................
    Administrative fee increase...............................  ................          -20,000           -20,000           -20,000   ................
    Move single-family programs to MMI (leg. proposal)........  ................           22,000   ................  ................          -22,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration...................           70,403           516,647           -80,889          -151,292          -597,536

        Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Salaries and expenses.........................................  ................  ................            9,530            +9,530            +9,530
    Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee
     program account:
        (Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................     (200,000,000)     (100,000,000)     (200,000,000)  ................    (+100,000,000)
        Administrative expenses...............................           10,700            11,000   ................          -10,700           -11,000
        Consolidate admin expenses (Sec 312) (leg. proposal)..  ................          (43,000)  ................  ................         (-43,000)
        Offsetting receipts...................................         -181,000          -163,000          -163,000           +18,000   ................
        Move single-family prgms from GSRI (leg. proposal)....  ................          -22,000   ................  ................          +22,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..........         -170,300          -174,000          -153,470           +16,830           +20,530

                Policy Development and Research

Salaries and expenses:
    Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research...  ................  ................            1,570            +1,570            +1,570
    Policy Development and Research salaries and expenses.....  ................  ................           19,310           +19,310           +19,310
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses............................  ................  ................           20,880           +20,880           +20,880

Research and technology.......................................           50,087            65,040            59,040            +8,953            -6,000

              Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Salaries and expenses:
    Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity  ................  ................            1,490            +1,490            +1,490
    Fair and Equal Opportunity salaries and expenses..........  ................  ................           69,390           +69,390           +69,390
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses............................  ................  ................           70,880           +70,880           +70,880

Fair housing activities.......................................           45,540            45,000            52,000            +6,460            +7,000

                 Office of Lead Hazard Control

Salaries and expenses.........................................  ................  ................            6,140            +6,140            +6,140
Lead hazard reduction.........................................          150,480           116,000           151,000              +520           +35,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Lead Hazard Control....................          150,480           116,000           157,140            +6,660           +41,140

                 Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses.........................................          581,108           654,092   ................         -581,108          -654,092
    GSE regulator/HUD oversight (leg. proposal)...............  ................           -4,000   ................  ................           +4,000
        Transfer from:
            Limitation on FHA corporate funds.................         (562,400)         (556,776)  ................        (-562,400)        (-556,776)
            GNMA..............................................          (10,700)          (10,700)  ................         (-10,700)         (-10,700)
            Community Development Loan Guarantees Program.....             (750)  ................  ................            (-750)  ................
            Native American Housing Block Grants..............             (150)             (149)  ................            (-150)            (-149)
            Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program........             (250)             (248)  ................            (-250)            (-248)
            Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees...........              (35)              (35)  ................             (-35)             (-35)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal........................................       (1,155,393)       (1,218,000)  ................      (-1,155,393)      (-1,218,000)

Working capital fund..........................................          195,356           220,000           175,000           -20,356           -45,000

Office of Inspector General...................................           81,853            88,240           112,000           +30,147           +23,760
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)..........          (23,760)          (23,760)  ................         (-23,760)         (-23,760)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (105,613)         (112,000)         (112,000)          (+6,387)  ................

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight................           60,000            66,000            66,000            +6,000   ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................          -60,000           -66,000           -66,000            -6,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................          858,317           958,332           287,000          -571,317          -671,332

Rescissions:
    Housing certificate fund..................................       -1,650,000        -1,300,000        -1,100,000          +550,000          +200,000
    Rental housing assistance (rescission)....................  ................          -27,600           -27,600           -27,600   ................
    Brownfields Redevelopment.................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
    Community Development Fund................................  ................         -356,400   ................  ................         +356,400
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       -1,650,000        -1,684,000        -1,127,600          +522,400          +556,400

FHA Proposals:
    Remove HECM cap/set nat'l loan limit......................  ................         -333,000          -512,000          -512,000          -179,000
    Increase multifamily loan limit...........................  ................          -14,000           -28,000           -28,000           -14,000
    GNMA six basis point premium..............................  ................          -15,000   ................  ................          +15,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban               36,626,245        35,597,018        38,744,429        +2,118,184        +3,147,411
       Development............................................
          Appropriations......................................      (34,989,245)      (33,675,018)      (36,167,029)      (+1,177,784)      (+2,492,011)
          Rescissions.........................................      (-1,650,000)      (-1,783,000)      (-1,127,600)        (+522,400)        (+655,400)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,193,000)       (4,200,000)       (4,200,000)          (+7,000)  ................
          Emergency appropriations............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................        (-833,000)        (-413,000)        (-413,000)        (+420,000)  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................         (-73,000)         (-82,000)         (-82,000)          (-9,000)  ................
      (Limitation on direct loans)............................         (100,000)         (100,000)         (100,000)  ................  ................
      (Limitation on guaranteed loans)........................     (430,289,490)     (320,408,504)     (430,683,504)        (+394,014)    (+110,275,000)
      (Limitation on corporate funds).........................         (598,045)         (591,668)  ................        (-598,045)        (-591,668)
                                                               =========================================================================================

             TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board....            5,915             6,150             6,150              +235   ................
Federal Maritime Commission...................................           20,428            22,322            22,322            +1,894   ................
National Transportation Safety Board:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................           79,338            83,000            84,500            +5,162            +1,500
    Rescission of unobligated balances........................           -1,000   ................  ................           +1,000   ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.........................          116,820           119,800           119,800            +2,980   ................
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.............            1,788             2,320             2,300              +512               -20
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............          223,289           233,592           235,072           +11,783            +1,480
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Grand total (net).......................................       48,174,326        47,999,562        51,112,233        +2,937,907        +3,112,671
          Appropriations......................................      (50,759,348)      (48,518,007)      (51,967,621)      (+1,208,273)      (+3,449,614)
          Emergency appropriations............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
          Offsetting collections..............................         (-73,000)         (-82,000)         (-82,000)          (-9,000)  ................
          Rescissions.........................................      (-1,727,400)      (-2,832,445)      (-1,160,876)        (+566,524)      (+1,671,569)
          Rescission of contract authority....................      (-4,092,582)      (-1,369,000)      (-3,377,512)        (+715,070)      (-2,008,512)
          Negative subsidy receipts...........................        (-833,000)        (-413,000)        (-413,000)        (+420,000)  ................
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,193,000)       (4,200,000)       (4,200,000)          (+7,000)  ................
          (Limitation on obligations).........................      (51,080,240)      (51,571,378)      (52,845,914)      (+1,765,674)      (+1,274,536)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
              (By transfer)...................................         (121,232)  ................  ................        (-121,232)  ................
              (Transfer out)..................................        (-121,232)  ................  ................        (+121,232)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (99,995,606)     (100,309,940)     (104,697,147)      (+4,701,541)      (+4,387,207)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      
