Senate Report 110-131 - TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008

[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:

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):

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:

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:

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

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

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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------