[Senate Report 110-418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       Calendar No. 878
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-418

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



 
  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009
                                _______
                                

                 July 14, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 3261]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3261) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.



Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2009

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $53,325,000,000
Amount of 2008 appropriations...........................  52,979,000,000
Amount of 2009 budget estimate..........................  55,022,920,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2008 appropriations.................................    +346,000,000
    2009 budget estimate................................  -1,697,920,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Program, Project, and Activity...................................     3
Reprogramming Guidelines.........................................     3
Congressional Budget Justifications..............................     4
Title I: Department of Transportation:
    Office of the Secretary......................................     6
    Federal Aviation Administration..............................    24
    Federal Highway Administration...............................    67
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..................    83
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............    94
    Federal Railroad Administration..............................   107
    Federal Transit Administration...............................   122
    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................   132
    Maritime Administration......................................   133
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.......   139
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration............   144
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics..........................   145
    Office of Inspector General..................................   145
    Surface Transportation Board.................................   147
    General Provisions--Department of Transportation.............   147
Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
    Executive Direction..........................................   151
    Adminisration, Operations and Management.....................   152
    Personnel Compensation and Benefits..........................   153
    Public and Indian Housing....................................   157
    Community Planning and Development...........................   167
    Housing Programs.............................................   182
    Federal Housing Administration...............................   185
    Government National Mortgage Association.....................   187
    Policy Development and Research..............................   187
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity...........................   188
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control..............   191
    Management and Administration:
        Working Capital Fund.....................................   192
        Office of Inspector General..............................   192
    Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight...............   193
    Administrative Provisions....................................   193
Title III: Independent Agencies:
    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board...   196
    Federal Maritime Commission..................................   197
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   197
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   199
    United States Interagency Council on Homelessness............   201
Title IV: General Provisions This Act............................   203
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   204
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   205
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   206
Budgetary Impact Statement.......................................   215
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............   215
Comparative Statement............................................   237

                     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 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

    Budget justifications 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 expects that all agencies funded 
under this act will heed this directive. 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 vital 
budget information that the Committee needs is not lost. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted 
with the fiscal year 2010 budget request by agencies funded 
under this act 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 2010 to the fiscal year 2009 
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 
2010 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 General Counsel; 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 
Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and 
Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. 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, 2008....................................     $91,782,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     101,782,000
Committee recommendation................................      98,500,000

                          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 $98,500,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and 
representation expenses. The recommendation is $3,282,000 less 
than the budget request and $6,718,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that 
none of the funding provided may be used for the position of 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and that $100,000 of 
the funding provided shall be reimbursed to the Office of 
Inspector General for costs associated with auditing the 
financial statements of the Working Capital Fund.
    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 2008 enacted 
level and the budget estimate:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted     2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary............................       $2,310,000       $2,400,000       $2,400,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary...............................          730,000          759,000          759,000
Office of the General Counsel................................       18,720,000       18,438,000       19,838,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy...        9,874,000       12,681,000        9,874,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs....        9,417,000       10,708,000       10,400,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs...        2,383,000        2,447,000        2,400,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.........       23,750,000       27,292,000       26,000,000
Office of Public Affairs.....................................        1,986,000        2,040,000        1,986,000
Executive Secretariat........................................        1,516,000        1,595,000        1,595,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......        1,335,000        1,369,000        1,369,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response.....        7,874,000        9,169,000        8,994,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer......................       11,887,000       12,885,000       12,885,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and Expenses...........................       91,782,000      101,782,000       98,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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 $2,400,000 for fiscal year 2009 
for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation 
is the same as the budget request and $90,000 greater than the 
fiscal year 2008 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 $759,000 for the Immediate Office 
of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget 
request and $29,000 greater than the fiscal year 2008 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 $19,838,000 for expenses of the 
Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2009. The 
recommended funding level is $1,400,000 more than the budget 
request and $1,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level.
    Efforts to Protect and Ensure the Rights of Airline 
Passengers.--Last year, the Committee increased the budget of 
the Office of General Counsel by $2,500,000 in order to 
increase enforcement activities to better protect air travel 
consumers. The Committee notes that the Department's budget 
request for fiscal year 2009 would provide increases to almost 
every office within Office of the Secretary, including the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs and 
the Office of Public Affairs, but not to the Office of the 
General Counsel. The budget request submitted by the Department 
would cut the budget for the Office of the General Counsel by 
$282,000. Of the $2,500,000 increase that the Congress provided 
last year to this office, the Department is currently 
requesting only $1,100,000 to be continued in fiscal year 2009. 
The Committee does not believe that this cut in the budget 
resources of the Office of General Counsel will help the 
Department enforce its rules and protect air travel consumers.
    The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$1,400,000 for the Office of General Counsel in order to 
restore the full $2,500,000 addition provided in the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level. In addition, the Committee directs the 
Office of General Counsel to use these funds exclusively for 
activities that most effectively improve the enforcement of 
Department rules and the protection of air travel consumers. 
Such activities may include hiring additional staff, traveling, 
investing in analysis that is essential for developing 
regulations, and translating public documents. The Committee, 
however, does not believe that organizing additional forums to 
discuss general consumer issues is the most effective means of 
improving the impact of this office. Therefore, the Committee 
directs than none of the $2,500,000 should be used for 
organizing such forums in fiscal year 2009.

       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 2009, the Committee recommends $9,874,000 
for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The 
recommended funding level is $2,807,000 less than the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2008 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 $10,400,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended 
level is $308,000 less than the budget request and $983,000 
over the fiscal year 2008 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 $2,400,000 for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The 
recommended level is $47,000 less than the budget request and 
$17,000 over the fiscal year 2008 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 $26,000,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 
level is $1,292,000 less than the budget request and $2,250,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 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 $1,986,000 for the Office of 
Public Affairs, which is $54,000 less than the budget request 
and equal to the fiscal year 2008 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 $1,595,000 for the Executive 
Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget 
request and $79,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level.

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,369,000, an amount equal to the 
budget request and $34,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level.

        OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 
keeps the Secretary and her advisors informed on intelligence 
and security issues pertaining to transportation. The office 
also provides support to the Secretary for her 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 $8,994,000 for the Office of 
Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The 
recommendation is $175,000 less than the request and $1,120,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $12,885,000, which is equal to 
request and $998,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level.

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      $6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Financial Management Capital program is a new multi-
year business transformation initiative to streamline and 
standardize the financial systems and business processes across 
the Department of Transportation. The initiative includes 
upgrading and enhancing the commercial software used for DOT's 
financial systems, improving the cost and performance data 
provided to managers, implementing a budget line of business, 
and instituting new accounting standards and mandates.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to support the 
Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is 
$5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 
$1,000,000 less than the budget request.
    This new initiative has the potential to improve the 
financial systems and processes of the Department and provide 
important benefits to all of the modes. The Committee applauds 
the effort that the Secretary has taken to involve the modal 
administrations in the planning and development process. 
However, the Committee wants to ensure that each mode is only 
paying for activities that will directly benefit its 
operations. The Committee is concerned that modes will be asked 
to reimburse OST for additional activities beyond which they 
have planned and budgeted, and from which they may not benefit. 
As a result, the Committee reminds the Secretary of language 
that continues to be included in the bill that limits OST's 
ability to approve new assessments or reimbursable agreements 
appropriated to the modal administrations for new activities, 
unless a reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by 
the Committees.
    The Committee also directs OST to provide the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations with an expenditure plan 30 
days after the enactment of this act that outlines the amount 
of funding for this initiative, including the amount 
contributed by each modal administration, as well as the 
benefits that will result from these investments. In addition, 
the Committee directs OST to provide more detailed 
justifications for this program in its fiscal year 2010 budget 
request. These detailed justifications should clearly display 
the amount requested for OST as well as the amount included in 
the budget request from each modal administration.

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $9,141,900
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       9,384,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,384,000

                          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 $9,384,000 for 
the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2009. The 
recommendation is identical to the budget request and is 
$242,100 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $13,883,900
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      10,105,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,750,000

                          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 $12,750,000 for transportation 
planning, research, and development, which is $2,645,000 more 
than the budget request and $1,133,900 less than the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level. The Committee directs funding to be 
allocated to the following projects that are listed below:

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment of Critical Transportation Infrastructure, MS        $750,000
Decision Support Tools for Transportation Resilience and         750,000
 Security, MS...........................................
Fire and Oil Spill Response Communications Project, WA..       1,600,000
Freight Transportation Policy Institute, WA.............         500,000
Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, WA.................         250,000
University Transportation Center, MS....................         500,000
Wildlife Crossing Project, FL...........................       1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2008........................................    $128,094,000
Budget estimate, 2009\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, 
continues to insist 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 
specifies 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 notes that the Department has greatly 
improved the transparency of its budget justifications. The 
``transparency paper'' included in the justifications for 
fiscal year 2009 provides essential information on total 
budgetary resources for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Administration and the Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, including the balance of resources provided through 
the Working Capital Fund and direct appropriations. Therefore, 
the Committee directs the Department to update this 
``transparency paper'' and include it in the budget 
justifications for fiscal year 2010.

               MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriations  guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.................         $893,000      $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2009................          912,000       18,367,000
Committee recommendation.............          912,000       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 $353,000 to 
cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $559,0000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
program. The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate 
and it is $19,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 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 2008 enacted level.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       3,056,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,056,000

                          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 $3,056,000 for grants and 
contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 
2009. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and 
$86,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

                        PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Appropriations   Mandatory\1\        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008............................................     $60,000,000     $50,000,000    $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...........................................  ..............      50,000,000      50,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................      60,000,000      65,000,000     125,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\From overflight fees provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742 and
  available spectrum action fees pursuant to Public Law 109-171.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air 
Service [EAS] program, which was created 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. In addition, the act stipulated 
that the first $50,000,000 of these so-called ``overflight 
fees'' 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. No such 
shortfall has occurred, however, since fiscal year 2005.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2009, 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, conversely, provides a total of $110,000,000 
for the Essential Air Service program, which is comprised of an 
appropriation of $60,000,000 and $50,000,000 derived from 
overflight fees. The Committee recommendation is $60,000,000 
more than the budget estimate and the same as the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level. In addition, it is anticipated that 
$15,000,000 made available to the program from spectrum auction 
sales pursuant to Public Law 109-171 shall remain available to 
help meet program costs in 2009. As such, based on the latest 
projections from the Department of Transportation, the funding 
level provided in this bill in combination with other available 
funding sources should equal $125,000,000 and be sufficient to 
continue air service during fiscal year 2009 to all eligible 
communities.
    The Committee rejects a proposal in the Presidents' 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 
Presidents proposal would serve to eliminate air service to a 
great many communities.
    Emerging Challenges to Continued EAS Service.--Several 
factors are serving to undermine the ability of the DOT to 
deliver air service to all the communities that are guaranteed 
such service under the regulations governing the EAS program. 
Just as market forces have resulted in the loss of air service 
to small- and medium-sized communities that are not eligible 
for EAS subsidies, those very same forces have made it 
difficult to entice air carriers to serve such communities 
utilizing Federal EAS subsidies. Over the last several years, 
the major passenger air carriers have effectively abandoned the 
EAS program, leaving smaller, less-capitalized, carriers to 
serve the subsidized communities. Many of these smaller 
carriers have struggled to stay afloat. The program has also 
been challenged by a growing shortage of appropriately sized 
aircraft that are available to serve EAS communities as such 
equipment is either being retired from the fleet or is being 
used for more profitable services elsewhere in the United 
States or overseas.
    Over the course of the last year, three EAS carriers--Air 
Midwest, Big Sky Airways, and Skyways Airlines, have each 
shuttered their operations. As a result, 37 eligible 
communities temporarily lost their EAS subsidized service. 
Taken together, the following communities are expected to be 
without air service for an estimated cumulative period of at 
least 133 months as a result of these shut downs.

                        EAS COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCING SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS AND SHUTDOWNS
                                               [As of June 20, 2008]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Estimated
                                   Last date of service   Tentative projected     no. of      Incoming carrier/
                                          in 2008        start of new service   months dark         status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       AIR MIDWEST SHUTDOWN

EAST:
    Athens, GA...................  May 23..............  Sep 01..............           3    Pacific Wings
    DuBois, PA...................  May 23..............  Sep 03..............           3    Gulfstream
    Franklin/Oil City, PA........  May 23..............  Sep 03..............           3    Gulfstream
    Lewisburg, WV................  May 23..............  Sep 03..............           3    Gulfstream
WEST:
    Ely, NV......................  May 31..............  Sep 08..............           3    Great Lakes
    Kingman, AZ..................  May 31..............  ....................  ............  Great Lakes
    Merced, CA...................  May 31..............  Sep 08..............           3    Great Lakes
    Prescott, AZ.................  May 31..............  ....................  ............  Great Lakes
    Visalia, CA..................  May 31..............  Sep 08..............           3    Great Lakes
CENTRAL:
    Columbia, MO.................  June 30.............  Aug 19..............           1.5  Mesaba
    El Dorado, AR................  June 30.............  Re-bid..............  ............  Proposals due June
                                                                                              20
    Grand Island, NE.............  June 30.............  Re-bid..............  ............  Proposals due June
                                                                                              20
    Harrison, AR.................  June 30.............  Re-bid..............  ............  Proposals due June
                                                                                              20
    Hot Springs, AR..............  June 30.............  Re-bid..............  ............  Proposals due June
                                                                                              20
    Jonesboro, AR................  June 30.............  Sep 01..............           2    Great Lakes
    Joplin, MO...................  June 30.............  Re-bid..............  ............  Proposals due June
                                                                                              20
    Kirksville, MO...............  June 30.............  Jul 28..............           1    Multi-Aero
    McCook, NE...................  June 30.............  June 01.............  ............  Great Lakes

         BIG SKY SHUTDOWN

    Cape Girardeau, MO...........  Jan 06..............  June 01.............           6    Great Lakes
    Jackson, TN..................  Jan 06..............  Sep 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Massena, NY..................  Jan 06..............  Sep 16..............           8    Cape Air
    Ogdensburg, NY...............  Jan 06..............  Sep 16..............           8    Cape Air
    Owensboro, KY................  Jan 06..............  Sep 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Plattsburgh, NY..............  Jan 06..............  Feb 12..............           1    Cape Air
    Saranac Lake, NY.............  Jan 06..............  Feb 12..............           1    Cape Air
    Watertown, NY................  Jan 06..............  Sep 16..............           8    Cape Air
    Glasgow, MT..................  Mar 08..............  Nov 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Glendive, MT.................  Mar 08..............  Nov 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Havre, MT....................  Mar 08..............  Nov 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Lewistown,MT.................  Mar 08..............  Sep 08 (maybe Aug 1)           6    Great Lakes
    Miles City, MT...............  Mar 08..............  Nov 01..............           8    Great Lakes
    Sidney, MT...................  Mar 08..............  Sep 08 (maybe Aug 1)           6    Great Lakes
    Wolf Point, MT...............  Mar 08..............  Nov 01..............           8    Great Lakes

         SKYWAYS SHUTDOWN

    Ironwood, MI.................  Apr 06..............  June 01.............           2    Great Lakes
    Manistee, MI.................  Apr 06..............  June 01.............           2    Great Lakes
    Iron Mountain, MI............  Apr 06..............  June 05.............           2    Mesaba
    Escanaba, MI.................  Apr 06..............  June 05.............           2    Mesaba
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT has been able to secure alternative carriers for many 
of these communities but is struggling to find alternative 
carriers for others. It is likely that some of these 
communities may never see air service return despite the 
availability of Federal subsidies.
    Rising fuel prices have also put increasing financial 
pressure on EAS carriers. As these carrier's EAS contracts come 
due to be renegotiated, they are appropriately seeking 
compensation that more realistically reflects the true cost of 
supplying air service under current market conditions.
    In the current fiscal year (2008), the EAS program should 
have adequate Federal resources to meet program costs. However, 
this is due in part because the increased cost of the newly 
entered contracts reflecting higher fuel prices are being 
offset in part by the savings associated with the program not 
having to pay subsidies for the communities enduring service 
interruptions.
    The Committee recognizes that the EAS program is undergoing 
a period of unprecedented uncertainty that makes it extremely 
difficult to predict what true program costs will be during 
fiscal year 2009. As such, the Committee has continued to 
include bill language, as it did in the 2008 Act, that directs 
the Secretary to transfer to the EAS program such sums as may 
be necessary to continue service to all eligible EAS points in 
fiscal year 2009. These funds, if needed, will be derived from 
other funds directly administered by, or appropriated to, the 
Office of the Secretary.
    The following table reflects the points currently receiving 
service and the annual rates as of June 1, 2008, in the 
continental United States and Hawaii.

                                                       ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
                                                [Data based on June 1, 2008 rates and CY 2007 passengers]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Avg. Daily
                                       Est. Miles   Enplnmnts    Ann. Sbsdy               Total Psgrs                           Est. no. of
         States/communities            to Nearest     at EAS    Rates at  6/ Subsidy per   (YE 12/31/            Hub             months in      Notes
                                      Hub (S,M,or   Point (YE      1/2008     Passenger       07)                                2008 with
                                         L)\1\      12/31/07)                                                                    no service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA:
    Muscle Shoals/Florence..........           60         17.0   $1,504,929      $141.06       10,669  MEM....................  ...........  ...........

ARIZONA:
    Kingman.........................          121          7.7    1,275,771       266.01        4,796  LAS....................  ...........        (\2\)
    Page............................          152         17.2    1,497,556       138.89       10,782  PHX....................  ...........  ...........
    Prescott........................          102         12.2    1,622,719       212.29        7,644  PHX....................  ...........        (\2\)
    Show Low........................          154         20.0      988,181        78.94       12,518  PHX....................  ...........  ...........
ARKANSAS:
    El Dorado.......................          107          5.3      937,385       282.09        3,323  DFW....................  ...........        (\3\)
    Harrison........................           80         15.4    1,406,078       145.48        9,665  DFW....................  ...........        (\3\)
    Hot Springs.....................           51         11.2    1,015,500       144.74        7,016  DFW....................  ...........        (\3\)
    Jonesboro.......................           82          9.9      937,385       151.44        6,190  DFW....................            2  ...........
CALIFORNIA:
    Crescent City...................          314         42.2      957,025        36.22       26,421  SFO/SMF................  ...........  ...........
    Merced..........................           60         19.3      799,604        66.12       12,094  LAS....................            3  ...........
    Visalia.........................           47         14.4      799,604        88.43        9,042  LAS....................            3  ...........
COLORADO:
    Alamosa.........................          164         23.5    1,150,268        78.28       14,694  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Cortez..........................          255         33.0      796,577        38.61       20,634  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Pueblo..........................           36         15.2    1,057,128       111.24        9,503  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
GEORGIA:
    Athens..........................           72         19.4    1,051,386        86.52       12,152  ATL....................            3  ...........
    Macon...........................           82         37.5    1,968,830        83.97       23,447  ATL....................  ...........  ...........
ILLINOIS:
    Decatur.........................          126         11.8    1,350,256       182.54        7,397  STL....................  ...........  ...........
    Marion..........................          123         19.8    1,126,810        90.80       12,410  STL....................  ...........  ...........
    Quincy..........................          111          7.6    1,532,891       322.65        4,751  STL....................  ...........  ...........
IOWA:
    Burlington......................           74  ...........      943,793  ...........  ...........  MCI....................  ...........        (\4\)
    Fort Dodge......................           91         22.3    1,056,933        75.66       13,969  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
    Mason City......................          131         42.9    1,056,933        39.31       26,885  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
KANSAS:
    Dodge City......................          150         16.5    1,378,036       133.09       10,354  DEN/MCI................  ...........  ...........
    Garden City.....................          202         35.0    2,373,320       108.30       21,915  DEN/MCI................  ...........  ...........
    Great Bend......................          114          2.6      749,435       468.40        1,600  MCI....................  ...........  ...........
    Hays............................          175         31.8    1,757,154        88.40       19,878  DEN/MCI................  ...........  ...........
    Liberal.........................          138         12.7      995,284       125.22        7,948  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Manhattan.......................          122         44.3    1,198,342        43.24       27,713  MCI....................  ...........  ...........
    Salina..........................           97          9.3      798,895       137.43        5,813  MCI....................  ...........  ...........
KENTUCKY:
    Owensboro.......................          105  ...........    1,448,625  ...........  ...........  STL....................            8        (\4\)
MAINE:
    Augusta.........................           67         13.1    1,190,864       166.08        8,191  BOS....................  ...........  ...........
    Bar Harbor......................          144         35.3    1,190,864        53.86       22,109  BOS....................  ...........  ...........
    Presque Isle....................          262         49.8    2,643,588        84.85       31,157  BOS....................  ...........  ...........
    Rockland........................           81         19.7    1,190,864        96.47       12,345  BOS....................  ...........  ...........
MARYLAND:
    Hagerstown......................           78          8.6  ...........  ...........        5,413  .......................  ...........        (\5\)
MICHIGAN:
    Escanaba........................          112         30.2    1,125,884        59.56       18,903  MSP....................            2  ...........
    Ironwood........................          213          8.5    1,492,865       280.51        5,322  MKE....................            2  ...........
    Iron Mountain...................          105         24.1    1,125,884        74.54       15,105  MSP....................            2  ...........
    Manistee........................          110         10.6    1,799,395       272.06        6,614  MKE....................            2  ...........
MINNESOTA:
    Chisholm/Hibbing................          199         27.3    1,261,841        73.96       17,060  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
    Thief River Falls...............          305         10.9    1,065,639       156.83        6,795  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
MISSISSIPPI:
    Laurel/Hattiesburg..............           89         46.6      917,129        31.47       29,142  MEM....................  ...........  ...........
    Meridian........................           88         49.7      686,489        22.06       31,114  ATL....................  ...........  ...........
MISSOURI:
    Cape Girardeau..................          127  ...........    1,497,542  ...........  ...........  STL....................            6  ...........
    Columbia........................          116         35.5      598,751        26.92       22,244  STL....................          1.5  ...........
    Ft. Leonard Wood................           85  ...........      519,858  ...........  ...........  STL....................  ...........  ...........
    Joplin..........................           70         46.9      849,757        28.92       29,386  MCI....................  ...........        (\3\)
    Kirksville......................          137          6.1      627,100       163.35        3,839  STL....................            1  ...........
MONTANA:
    Glasgow.........................          285          6.0      928,433       246.40        3,768  BIL....................            8  ...........
    Glendive........................          222          3.1    1,056,152       548.37        1,926  BIL....................            8  ...........
    Havre...........................          230          4.3    1,036,616       381.11        2,720  BIL....................            8  ...........
    Lewistown.......................          103          2.1    1,036,616       790.71        1,311  BIL....................            6  ...........
    Miles City......................          145          3.6    1,056,152       468.78        2,253  BIL....................            8  ...........
    Sidney..........................          272         10.5    2,159,591       329.01        6,564  BIL....................            6  ...........
    West Yellowstone................          332         12.1      431,996        57.26        7,545  SLC....................  ...........  ...........
    Wolf Point......................          293          5.2      928,433       283.84        3,271  BIL....................            8  ...........
NEBRASKA:
    Alliance........................          233          6.3      748,635       188.53        3,971  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Chadron.........................          290          7.7      748,635       155.45        4,816  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Grand Island....................          138         28.6    1,377,877        76.91       17,916  MCI....................  ...........        (\3\)
    Kearney.........................          181         40.2      897,142        35.67       25,153  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    McCook..........................          256          9.3      918,585       158.10        5,810  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    North Platte....................          255         33.8      976,026        46.06       21,190  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Scottsbluff.....................          192         37.4      520,137        22.20       23,431  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
NEVADA:
    Ely.............................          234          1.9      647,709       547.51        1,183  LAS....................            3  ...........
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
    Lebanon.........................           72         30.3    1,069,606        56.45       18,948  LGA....................  ...........  ...........
NEW MEXICO:
    Alamogordo......................           89          1.3      717,506       851.13          843  ABQ....................  ...........  ...........
    Carlsbad........................          149          8.2      303,554        59.42        5,109  ABQ....................  ...........  ...........
    Clovis..........................          102          8.3    1,182,645       227.87        5,190  ABQ....................  ...........  ...........
    Hobbs...........................           90          6.7      303,554        71.95        4,219  ABQ....................  ...........  ...........
    Silver City.....................          134          7.0    1,182,645       271.06        4,363  ABQ....................  ...........  ...........
NEW YORK:
    Jamestown.......................           76         13.1    1,217,414       147.91        8,231  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Massena.........................          138          5.5    1,297,613       379.42        3,420  ALB....................            8  ...........
    Ogdensburg......................          105          7.6    1,353,916       283.01        4,784  ALB....................            8  ...........
    Plattsburgh.....................           82          2.6    1,379,257       848.25        1,626  BOS....................            1  ...........
    Saranac Lake....................          132         11.1    1,431,875       205.58        6,965  BOS....................            1  ...........
    Watertown.......................           54         29.1    1,228,334        67.37       18,232  ALB....................            8  ...........
NORTH DAKOTA:
    Devils Lake.....................          402         10.9    1,331,664       194.94        6,831  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
    Dickinson.......................          319         24.5    1,696,977       110.44       15,365  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Jamestown.......................          333          7.1    1,355,011       305.39        4,437  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
OREGON:
    Pendleton.......................          185         23.9      748,440        50.00       14,969  PDX....................  ...........  ...........
PENNSYLVANIA:
    Altoona.........................          112         13.4    1,413,627       168.81        8,374  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Bradford........................           77          9.4    1,217,414       207.36        5,871  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Du Bois.........................          112         22.2    2,020,095       145.29       13,904  CLE....................            3  ...........
    Johnstown.......................           84         29.5      950,835        51.40       18,497  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Lancaster.......................           28         16.9  ...........  ...........       10,583  .......................  ...........        (\5\)
    Oil City/Franklin...............           85          4.8    1,226,773       412.50        2,974  CLE....................            3  ...........
PUERTO RICO:
    Mayaguez........................          105         14.6      735,660        80.26        9,166  SJU....................  ...........  ...........
    Ponce...........................           77         13.9      661,399        75.87        8,717  SJU....................  ...........        (\6\)
SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Brookings.......................           58          4.7  ...........  ...........        2,940  .......................  ...........        (\5\)
    Huron...........................          121          8.6      793,733       146.66        5,412  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Watertown.......................          207         16.8    1,189,606       112.97       10,530  MSP....................  ...........  ...........
TENNESSEE:
    Jackson.........................           86           .0    1,598,291  ...........  ...........  STL....................            8        (\4\)
TEXAS:
    Victoria........................           93         28.9      610,047        33.67       18,120  IAH....................  ...........  ...........
UTAH:
    Cedar City......................          179         20.6    1,242,256        96.18       12,916  SLC....................  ...........  ...........
    Moab............................          256          8.9    1,607,903       287.54        5,592  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Vernal..........................          150          9.4    1,147,786       194.18        5,911  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
VERMONT:
    Rutland.........................           69          7.4      839,746       180.28        4,658  BOS....................  ...........  ...........
VIRGINIA:
    Staunton........................          133         15.5    1,389,727       142.87        9,727  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
WEST VIRGINIA:
    Beckley.........................          168          9.1    1,930,759       338.79        5,699  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Clarksburg......................           96         13.5    1,058,325       124.98        8,468  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Greenbrier/Lewisburg............          166         13.7    2,330,725       270.95        8,602  CLE....................            3        (\7\)
    Morgantown......................           75         12.2    1,058,325       138.80        7,625  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
    Parkersburg.....................          110         14.2    2,290,727       256.81        8,920  IAD....................  ...........  ...........
WYOMING:
    Laramie.........................          145         32.7      487,516        23.85       20,443  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
    Worland.........................          161         11.8      972,757       131.15        7,417  DEN....................  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\Great Lakes was selected at these rates on June 10 by Order 2008-6-11 but has not started service yet.
\3\Carrier-selection case is pending.
\4\Service hiatus due to Big Sky shutdown.
\5\BKX, HGR, LNS: Legislatively lost subsidy eligibility effective 10/1/2007. On February 28, 2008, their eligibility was reinstated through September
  30, 2008, by the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2008. No carriers responded to DOT's RFPs.
\6\Cape Air Traffic only.
\7\Air Midwest traffic only.

Note: Italics indicate that the community either has experienced or will experience a service hiatus in 2008.

                     COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    -$22,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................        -848,000
Committee recommendation................................        -848,000

    The Committee recommends a rescission of all remaining 
balances from this account in fiscal year 2009. These balances 
are estimated at $848,000. This rescission level is the same as 
the budget request and $21,152,000 less than the rescission 
level enacted for fiscal year 2008. 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.
    Section 104 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or 
her designee to engage in activities with States and State 
legislatures to consider proposals related to the reduction of 
motorcycle fatalities.

                    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 2009 amounts to $15,505,833,000, which is $862,833,000 
more than the budget request and $590,894,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 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 2009 
proposes 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 last year. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science 
and Transportation has reported legislation that would 
authorize FAA programs through fiscal year 2011 and the House 
of Representatives has transmitted a bill to the Senate that 
also would extend such programs through fiscal year 2011. Both 
the Commerce Committee bill and the bill approved by the House 
of Representatives continue 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 2009. All of the information presented 
below, including the display of President's budget estimates 
for fiscal year 2009, follows the existing structure.
    In addition to changes to the FAA budget structure, the 
reauthorization proposal submitted by the President 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 continues to believe 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 2009 excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2008 enacted      2009 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
    General fund appropriation.........................     $2,342,939,100     $2,717,489,000     $2,923,238,000
    Trust fund appropriation...........................      6,397,060,900      6,280,973,000      6,147,000,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,513,611,000      2,723,510,000      2,749,595,000
Research, engineering, and development:
    General fund appropriation.........................  .................         15,025,000  .................
    Trust fund appropriation...........................        146,828,000        156,003,000        171,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports.............................      3,514,500,000      2,750,000,000      3,515,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     14,914,939,000     14,643,000,000     15,505,833,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $8,740,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   8,998,462,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,070,238,000

                          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 $9,070,238,000 for FAA 
operations. This funding level is $71,776,000 more than the 
budget request, and $330,238,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives 
$6,147,000,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway 
trust fund. 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 2008 enacted level:

                                                 FAA OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal year
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                           2008  enacted      2009  estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization...............................     $6,966,193,000     $7,078,793,000     $7,119,031,000
Aviation Safety........................................      1,081,602,000      1,130,927,000      1,162,927,000
Commercial Space Transportation........................         12,549,000         14,094,000         14,094,000
Financial Services.....................................        100,593,000        112,004,000        112,004,000
Human Resource Management..............................         91,214,000         96,091,000         96,091,000
Region and Center Operations...........................        286,848,000        336,894,000        336,894,000
Staff Offices..........................................        162,351,000        181,321,000        180,859,000
Information Services...................................         38,650,000         48,338,000         48,338,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL............................................      8,740,000,000      8,998,462,000      9,070,238,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 1996, Valujet Flight 592 crashed into the 
Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board. 
Investigations of that tragedy revealed glaring weaknesses in 
the FAA's program to inspect air carriers and ensure the safety 
of their operations. Shortly after the accident, the Associate 
FAA Administrator for Certification and Regulation announced 
his immediate retirement. Both the DOT and Congress moved 
rapidly to limit the FAA's mission to overseeing the safety of 
air transportation. Congress insisted that it was inappropriate 
for an agency in charge of regulating aviation safety to be 
simultaneously charged with advancing the commercial viability 
of the airline industry. Today, the FAA still struggles with 
creating a culture of safety and accountability. During the 
past year, whistleblowers disclosed that managers at an air 
traffic control facility had consistently underreported and 
misclassified operational errors by air traffic controllers. 
Those whistleblowers' attempts to expose and rectify the 
problem were met by inappropriate and punitive retaliation on 
the part of FAA managers. In another incident, the FAA allowed 
an air carrier to fly passengers for a period of at least 9 
months while their aircraft were in violation of mandatory FAA 
safety directives. The FAA manager in charge was fully aware of 
these violations by the carrier but, nonetheless, allowed the 
carrier to fly almost 1,500 more flights carrying 145,000 
passengers before other FAA managers intervened and required 
the violations to be rectified.
    In both of the incidents cited above, FAA managers at 
various levels of authority were either knowledgeable or 
complicit in these inappropriate actions. As recently as June 
30, 2008, the DOT Inspector General's investigation of the 
latter incident concluded that ``it appears that FAA management 
fostered a culture whereby air carriers were considered the 
primary customer of its oversight mission instead of the flying 
public.'' The Committee is dismayed over the fact that, despite 
numerous and repeated representations to the contrary, so 
little has changed in both the culture of the agency and its 
commitment to fixing past mistakes.
    Ignoring Past Agency Commitments to Improve Safety.--
          ``Starting in 1991, we were addressing these very 
        same issues. We were asking what is wrong with FAA 
        inspections. We came up with a virtual laundry list of 
        things that were wrong. There were promises made and 
        promises not kept This is back in 1991--totally 
        different leadership, totally different administration, 
        but the problems go on. We found problems in safety 
        oversight, problems in maintenance, problems in repair 
        stations . . .''
                                                DOT Inspector 
                                                General Mary 
                                                Shiavo
                                                Testimony on 
                                                ValuJet Flight 
                                                592 Tragedy
                                                House Committee 
                                                on 
                                                Transportation 
                                                and 
                                                Infrastructure
                                                June 25, 1996.

          ``It is frustrating. In response to our 2002 
        recommendation for greater national oversight, FAA 
        promised that its newly appointed Director of Flight 
        Standards Division would undertake that responsibility. 
        It didn't happen. We felt that we had been burned. When 
        we reviewed ATOS again in 2005, we found the same 
        thing.''
                                                DOT Inspector 
                                                General Cal 
                                                Scovell
                                                Testimony on 
                                                FAA Safety 
                                                Performance
                                                Senate 
                                                Committee on 
                                                Appropriations
                                                April 17, 2008.
    Consistent with its statutory charge, the DOT Inspector 
General [OIG] has continually examined the performance of the 
FAA and issued relevant recommendations. The FAA, in return, 
has often formally agreed with the IG's recommendations and 
promised to make improvements. Yet, these recommendations have 
often remained open for years at a time. The OIG has even had 
to take the unusual step of issuing new recommendations that 
say nothing more than that the FAA should quit dithering and 
implement the very recommendations that the agency had already 
promised to implement years before.
    The OIG is continuing to look at the two incidents from 
this past year that revealed serious lapses in safety oversight 
and a disturbing absence of accountability on the part of FAA 
managers. These investigations are likely to result in 
significant recommendations from the Inspector General. The 
Committee expects the FAA to implement those safety 
recommendations in which the agency concurs fully and without 
delay. The FAA's continuing practice of issuing empty promises 
for improvement, but then continuing to conduct ``business as 
usual'' must cease.
    The Committee notes that the OIG is currently monitoring 
over 180 recommendations that the office has issued to the FAA 
since 2001. These recommendations focus on improving safety, 
reducing risk posed by with major air traffic control projects, 
addressing key workforce issues, and strengthening financial 
management. Although the FAA has concurred with almost all of 
these recommendations, the agency still has not implemented the 
recommendations as promised. The chart below lists several of 
these recommendations that the OIG has identified as ``key'' 
recommendations that focus on improving safety, security, and 
oversight as well as improving fiscal controls of the FAA. 
Again, the FAA has concurred with all but one of these 
recommendations, but has not followed their concurrences with 
sufficient action to close the recommendation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Report title                  Date issued                                       Open recommendation(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Air Carriers' Use of Aircraft         7/8/2003  Develop a process to: (a) identify repair stations that air carriers use to perform aircraft
 Repair Stations.                                          maintenance; (b) identify repair stations that are performing safety critical repairs; and
                                                           (c) target inspector resources based on risk assessments or analysis of data collected on air
                                                           carrier outsourcing practices.
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)........       7/23/2003  Develop realistic cost estimates for capacity initiatives, and link the OEP with the Agency's
                                                           budget in order to set priorities for what can be accomplished in the short term.
                                                          Determine--in concert with the aviation community--how to move forward (and at what pace) with
                                                           systems that require airspace users to purchase and install new technologies.
Audit of FAA's Traffic Controller               6/2/2004  Develop an assessment process for identifying a new controller's potential to certify at a
 Program.                                                  certain facility level and use this information in placing newly hired controllers.
                                                          Compile national statistics and establish a baseline to better manage the time and costs
                                                           associated with the controller on-the-job training [OJT] process and include these in
                                                           developing a tracking system for training.
Security and Controls Over En Route             8/9/2004  Enable and enforce use of passwords to authenticate users of Air Traffic Control systems.
 Center Computer Systems.                                 Install automatic fire suppression systems to protect telecommunications equipment at the en
                                                           route centers and other key locations.
Report on Observations on FAA's                9/30/2004  Implement a process by which FAA and industry agree on entrance and exit criteria of joint
 Controller Pilot Data Link                                programs that require synchronized government and industry investment, should FAA start
 Communications [CPDLC] Program.                           another CPDLC program.
Review of FAA's Terminal Automation           11/23/2004  Replace aging displays at its four large terminal sites that do not have color displays. This
 Alternatives.                                             should be done expeditiously and based on the priority needs of individual sites.
                                                          Determine requirements for fusion tracking (integrating radar and satellite data for air
                                                           traffic control) as well as where it is needed, how much it will cost, and how long it would
                                                           take to deploy.
National Airspace Redesign..............       5/13/2005  Develop a strategy and establish guidelines for addressing the demand for new sectors. This
                                                           strategy should take into account, among other things, planned technology enhancements,
                                                           equipment and frequency limitations, and the expected size of the controller workforce.
Safety Oversight of an Air Carrier              6/3/2005  Establish policies and procedures to ensure national analysis and support groups provide
 Industry in Transition.                                   stronger national assistance to field offices so that risk assessments and inspections of air
                                                           carrier changes are conducted in a timely and consistent manner.
Review of Chicago O'Hare Modernization         7/21/2005  Develop a schedule that synchronizes implementation of airspace changes with airfield changes
 Program (OMP).                                            and send to Congress a budget linked to this schedule that identifies the timing and cost of
                                                           the resources needed to complete OMP airspace changes. This includes airspace changes outside
                                                           the Chicago area that further enhance the OMP.
Disposal and Development of Properties         9/30/2005  Ensure that sponsors (a) implement written, FAA-approved plans for disposing of Airport
 Acquired Under Airport Noise                              Improvement Program [AIP] funded noise land that is no longer needed for noise compatibility
 Compatibility Programs.                                   programs or for airport development and (b) either return the proceeds from any dispositions
                                                           to the Trust Fund or reinvest them in other FAA-approved noise mitigation projects at the
                                                           airport.
Disposal and Development of Properties         9/30/2005  FAA should direct airport sponsors to develop and implement plans to recover FAA's share
 Acquired Under Airport Noise                              (estimated at $81.7 million) of the affected land's fair market value from airports that are
 Compatibility Programs.                                   misusing noise land disposition proceeds at 11 airports.
Follow-up Audit-Review of Air Traffic          12/7/2005  Identify specific coursework taught at the FAA Academy as part of new controller training that
 Controller Training.                                      is currently provided or could be provided by colleges and universities.
                                                          Determine if those courses could be discontinued as part of FAA provided training and instead
                                                           made a prerequisite to employment as an air traffic controller with the FAA.
                                                          Report the results of the determination (course work review and analysis) to the Secretary,
                                                           Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget as part of the next update to the Agency's
                                                           Controller Workforce Plan, which is due at the beginning of the fiscal year 2007
                                                           appropriations cycle.
Air Carriers' Use of Non-Certificated         12/15/2005  Inventory air carrier vendor lists that include all maintenance providers working on air
 Repair Facilities.                                        carrier aircraft and identify non-certificated repair facilities performing critical or
                                                           scheduled maintenance.
                                                          Determine whether it should limit the type of work non-certificated facilities can perform.
                                                          Review air carriers' internal audit programs for non-certificated repair facilities as part of
                                                           the oversight of air carrier operations to ensure that each carrier has established a
                                                           standard and in-depth process for evaluating these facilities.
                                                          Determine whether air carriers evaluate the background, experience, and qualifications of
                                                           temporary maintenance personnel used by contractors to ensure the work they perform is
                                                           completed in accordance with FAA and air carrier requirements.
Physical Security of FAA Facilities.....       2/14/2006  Establish protocols and conduct periodic tests of access controls at all FAA staffed
                                                           facilities. Facility accreditation should be contingent upon successfully passing testing.
                                                          Require that contract security guards obtain up-to-date training on various screening
                                                           technologies and testing equipment.
Security and Control Over the Remote           2/21/2006  Enhance the current Maintenance Process System [MPS] contingency plan to address situations in
 Maintenance Processing System [RMMS],                     which the MPS computer becomes nonfunctional, including an evaluation of alternative ways to
 FAA.                                                      gain remote access to critical field equipment.
Quality Control Review of the Report on        9/29/2006  Enterprise Services Center Management should consider implementing a security enclave that
 Controls Over the Enterprise Service                      would separate the Delphi servers by placing the servers on their own Internet Protocol
 Center's Delphi Financial Management                      network. The access to this network should be controlled by firewalls and monitored by an
 System.                                                   Intrusion Detection System. In the short run, coordinate patch management and other security
                                                           features for all agencies that own hardware/software in the Mike Monroney Aeronautical
                                                           Center.
Review of FAA's 2006 Update to the              2/9/2007  Begin using the on-the-job-training [OJT] national database to (a) determine whether training
 Controller Workforce Plan.                                resources can be used more efficiently and effectively, (b) identify best practices, and (c)
                                                           identify and investigate instances where excessive time lapses in the OJT process occurred.
Joint Planning and Development Office          2/12/2007  Report Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) cost data along three vectors--
 [JPDO].                                                   developmental efforts, adjustments to existing programs, and NextGen implementation--when
                                                           reporting NextGen financial requirements to Congress and stakeholders.
                                                          Review existing ongoing modernization programs to determine if they are still needed and, if
                                                           so, what adjustments in cost, schedule, and performance parameters will be needed.
                                                          Include information in the annual JPDO progress report on specific research projects with
                                                           budget data for FAA developmental efforts as well as budget data of other agencies that are
                                                           being leveraged and specify how the ongoing research is supporting the JPDO.
                                                          Determine what skill sets and expertise, with respect to software development and system
                                                           integration, will be required by the Air Traffic Organization and JPDO--and how they will be
                                                           obtained--to manage and execute NextGen initiatives.
                                                          Fund targeted human factors research to ensure that the changing roles of controllers and
                                                           pilots envisioned by the JPDO can safely be accommodated. This will require a re-
                                                           prioritization of ongoing efforts at FAA and close cooperation with National Aeronautics and
                                                           Space Administration, which also conducts human factors research.
Review of FAA's Actions To Address             5/24/2007  Require each line of business to include quantitative goals in their annual business plans for
 Runway Incursions at Boston Logan,                        reducing runway incursion risks that are specific to their oversight responsibilities and
 Chicago O'Hare and Philadelphia                           designate the Runway Safety Office the authority to review and approve all runway safety
 International Airports.                                   initiatives submitted by all lines of business.
FAA's Review of Allegations of Unsafe          9/28/2007  Require the Flight Standards Service to establish better internal review procedures to ensure
 Maintenance Practices at Northwest                        that comprehensive, independent investigations of safety allegations and recommendations are
 Airlines.                                                 consistently performed.
FAA's Review of Allegations of Unsafe         10/31/2007  Develop (a) realistic cost estimates for all activities required to complete ASDE-X
 Maintenance Practices at Northwest                        implementation and (b) a master schedule through ASDE-X completion that outlines when all
 Airlines.                                                 implementation activities and planned capabilities will be commissioned for operational use.
                                                          Correct prohibitive and improper contract administration procedures by (a) discontinuing the
                                                           practice of increasing contractor fees based on costs incurred rather than negotiated fixed-
                                                           fee dollar amounts, (b) discontinuing the practice of making payments before meaningful work
                                                           has been completed on fixed-price items, and (c) adequately documenting any contract changes.
                                                          Resolve operational performance issues identified during system testing before implementing
                                                           key ASDE-X safety capabilities at other airports by (a) addressing timeliness of safety alert
                                                           capabilities for intersecting runways and fully testing converging taxiways capability, (b)
                                                           addressing problems with dropped targets and outages during heavy rain storms, and (c)
                                                           testing rain configuration software upgrades at airports with Airport Surface Detection
                                                           Equipment-Model 3 radars and intersecting runways and taxiways.
                                                          Determine (a) the feasibility of combining ASDE-X, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast
                                                           [ADS-B], and in-cockpit moving map technologies to simultaneously provide controllers and
                                                           pilots with direct alerts to warn them of potential ground collisions and (b) the costs and
                                                           timeline for implementing this capability at all ASDE-X airports.
                                                          Work with airports to aggressively promote equipping their vehicles with transponders to
                                                           maximize ASDE-X capabilities as a vital step in reducing the risks of ground collisions
                                                           caused by vehicle operator error.
Monitoring of fiscal year 2007 Audit of        11/9/2007  Fully comply with the existing standardized policies and procedures for timely entry of
 Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA]                   transactions in the fixed assets subsidiary ledger to ensure that Construction in Progress
 Financial Statement.                                      [CIP] and related Property, Plant & Equipment [PP&E] balances are accurate, complete and
                                                           performed timely throughout the year. Perform a detailed review over all base and pool
                                                           projects to ensure burden allocations and allocations are complete and accurate.
                                                          Complete the design and full implementation of internal controls around the existing and
                                                           planned standardized policies and procedures, as well as clearly define the roles and
                                                           responsibilities necessary to set-up and then manage financial reporting and capitalization
                                                           operations in the various FAA organizations, as required by FMFIA and OMB Circular A-123.
                                                          Ensure that supporting documentation for capitalization of PP&E, including CIP, is properly
                                                           managed, maintained, and available for examination upon request. Management should consider
                                                           the need for enhancing or re-evaluating current on-line documentation management system
                                                           tools, as well as on-demand access to financial data for the Financial Management [AFM]
                                                           organization for ad hoc reporting to support audit requirements and to support AFM in
                                                           managing the CIP account.
                                                          Implement a scorecard with metrics to track compliance with capitalization policies and
                                                           procedures and to ensure that assets are being capitalized timely. Implement a capability to
                                                           track the estimated date place in service by asset to facilitate CIP management, forecast
                                                           deployment of assets, and improve the quality of the year end assertion/accrual process.
                                                          Continue training and strengthening communication between the field, regions, and the
                                                           operating accounting offices to ensure that they follow newly implemented guidance resulting
                                                           from the Corrective Action Plan over PP&E, including CIP.
                                                          Improve the functionality of its IT systems, especially fixed assets project modules, to
                                                           automate transactions wherever possible, and reduce the extent of manual intervention to
                                                           record routine transactions involving CIP and PP&E.
                                                          Perform a human capital needs assessment for various FAA offices, with a particular focus on
                                                           the Property Control and Analysis Division (AFM-500). The assessment should identify the
                                                           additional managerial skill sets (e.g., financial accounting background, knowledge, and
                                                           expertise) required to establish and strengthen the financial accounting and reporting
                                                           infrastructure throughout the FAA, and once established, to effectively manage the processes,
                                                           gradually correct control weakness, and produce reliable and timely financial statements
                                                           throughout the year.
                                                          Improve the information technology environment applicable to the applications reviewed by
                                                           implementing the specific recommendations provided in the aforementioned separate Limited
                                                           Distribution Management Report.
                                                          Assign ownership responsibility to the appropriate organization within the FAA to ensure
                                                           inventory is fairly stated on a going forward basis.
                                                          Perform periodic reviews to ensure the accuracy of inventory accounts in terms of valuation
                                                           and classification.
                                                          Develop policies and procedures to ensure new inventory items are not double-counted between
                                                           inventory and the property general ledger.
Assessment of FAA's Risk-based System          2/26/2008  Develop a risk assessment process that emphasizes suppliers of flight-critical parts (e.g.,
 for Overseeing Aircraft Manufacturers'                    those that manufacture critical and high-volume parts or use large numbers of suppliers,
 Suppli-  ers.                                             etc.) for passenger aircraft.
                                                          Modify its supplier audit requirements so that the number of audits that inspectors are
                                                           required to conduct more directly correlates with the number of suppliers used by the prime
                                                           manufacturer.
Air Traffic Control Modernization: FAA         4/14/2008  Develop written criteria for the selection of milestone metrics that are used for tracking
 Faces Challenges in Managing Ongoing                      progress with major acquisitions and reported in Agency plans and reports.
 Projects, Sustaining Existing                            Develop and report on a new set of metrics for measuring progress with NextGen initiatives
 Facilities, and Introducing New                           that focus on the delivery of a new capability with respect to enhancing capacity, boosting
 Capabilities.                                             productivity, or reducing Agency operating costs.
                                                          Complete a gap analysis of the NAS enterprise architecture that closely examines current
                                                           systems (the as is) and the planned NextGen enterprise architecture (the to be) and develop
                                                           and establish priorities.
                                                          Once the gap analysis is completed, develop an interim architecture that details what can be
                                                           accomplished in the 2015 timeframe that will allow FAA to more accurately determine costs and
                                                           other factors required for NextGen.
Alleged Cover-up of Operational Errors         4/18/2008  Require FAA's Office of Air Traffic Safety Oversight [AOV]--vice the Air Traffic
 at DFW TRACON (Referral from the U.S.                     Organization's Safety Services element [ATO-Safety]--to conduct comprehensive on-site, no-
 Office of Special Counsel).                               notice audits at FAA's Dallas-Fort Worth [DFW] Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON]
                                                           facility.
                                                          Expedite the early deployment of Traffic Analysis Review Program [TARP], a state-of-the-art
                                                           automated system that detects losses of separation, at the DFW TRACON.
                                                          Remove the Quality Assurance function at all Air Traffic Control facilities from the
                                                           supervision of facility management.
                                                          Conduct a top-to-bottom review of ATO-Safety's management, staffing, and processes.
Review of Reported Near Mid-Air                4/24/2008  Restructure the existing NMAC reporting process so that the actual safety risks posed by
 Collisions [NMAC] in the New York                         reported events are accurately reflected. Actions to better reflect actual safety risks could
 Metropolitan Airspace.                                    include developing a procedure to reclassify no-hazard events, redefining the NMAC criteria,
                                                           or revising the term NMAC.
Review of the Air Traffic Controller            6/5/2008  Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual number of CPCs, CPC-
 Facility Training Program.                                ITs, and developmental controllers by location to provide stakeholders with an accurate
                                                           representation of the controller workforce.
Review of FAA's Safety Oversight of                  N/A  Implement and enforce a process for second-level supervisory review of self-disclosures before
 Airlines and Use of Regulatory                            they are accepted and closed--acceptance and closure should not rest solely with one
 Partnership Programs (Recommendations                     inspector.
 made in testimony before Congress,                       Ensure that inspectors (a) verify that air carriers take comprehensive actions to correct
 April 3, 2008.).                                          underlying causes of violations identified through self-disclosure programs and (b) evaluate--
                                                           before accepting a new report of a previously disclosed violation--whether the carrier
                                                           developed and implemented a comprehensive solution.
                                                          Develop procedures for periodically rotating supervisory inspectors to ensure reliable and
                                                           objective air carrier oversight.
                                                          Implement post-employment guidance that includes a cooling-off period (e.g., 2 years) that
                                                           prohibits an FAA inspector hired at an air carrier he or she previously inspected from acting
                                                           in any type of liaison capacity between FAA and the carrier.
                                                          Ensure its air carrier oversight mission clearly identifies the flying public as a primary
                                                           stakeholder and beneficiary of its inspection efforts; FAA should commit to this in writing
                                                           and clearly communicate it to all FAA inspection staff.
                                                          Implement a process to monitor field office inspections and alert local, regional, and
                                                           Headquarters management to overdue inspections so that immediate corrective actions can be
                                                           taken.
                                                          Create a national review team to conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of FAA's oversight
                                                           of air carriers to ensure that (a) appropriate processes and procedures are being applied
                                                           consistently and (b) pertinent policies, laws and regulations are being followed.
                                                          Establish an independent organization (that reports directly to the FAA Administrator or
                                                           Deputy Administrator) to investigate safety issues identified by FAA employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

    Critical Lapse in Accountability--Operational Errors.--In 
2000, the Office of Inspector General [OIG] reported that the 
FAA's dependence on self-reporting to track operational errors 
placed the agency at risk of underreporting the errors. The 
report also warned that the FAA was not placing a high enough 
priority on establishing a reliable system of tracking 
operational errors. The report said, ``FAA has been ineffective 
and has not shown a sense of urgency in reducing operational 
errors.'' The FAA concurred with most of the OIG's 
recommendations and promised improvements.
    As discussed above, in 2004, a whistleblower from the 
Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON revealed that operational errors at 
her facility were, in fact, being underreported. On February 
14, 2004, the OIG reported, ``[I]t took whistleblowing . . . 
and our probe to expose a 7-year management practice at this 
TRACON of improperly investigating--and therefore, 
underreporting--operational errors . . . The fact that this 
improper practice went undetected for many years raises 
questions as to the efficacy of management oversight performed 
by FAA's Southwest region, as well as headquarters elements.''
    In response to the 2004 report, the FAA agreed to take a 
number of administrative actions to correct the problem, in 
2008, the same whistleblower was required to come forward again 
to disclose that operational errors were still being 
underreported as well as misclassified as pilot errors. On June 
11, 2008, the OIG reported, ``We continue to receive 
allegations that operational errors are going unreported or in 
some cases intentionally misclassified. In 2007, we initiated a 
second investigation at the Dallas TRACON and found 62 
operational errors and deviations that had been intentionally 
misclassified as pilot errors or ``non-events.''
    The number and severity of operational errors are essential 
measurements of aviation safety. The FAA must be able to track 
operational errors accurately in order to monitor safety risk 
at its facilities. For this reason, the Committee finds it 
unconscionable that FAA managers at the DFW facility would 
underreport and later misrepresent the number of operational 
errors committed under their watch. Furthermore, the Committee 
finds it just as disturbing that the leadership at FAA 
headquarters would not have been aware of the situation without 
the persistence and courage of a whistleblower, and that 
headquarters leadership was unable to end these practices 
immediately upon discovering them the first time.
    In order to return accountability to the counting of 
operational errors, the FAA has accelerated the implementation 
of the Traffic Analysis Review Program [TARP]. TARP is designed 
to automatically identify potential operational errors for 
further investigation. According to FAA plans, TARP will be 
deployed at DFW before the end of 2008 and throughout the 
agency by the end of 2009. The TARP program is not expensive, 
and the FAA will spend $1,108,600 in fiscal year 2009 for its 
implementation. The Committee believes that TARP's highest 
value will be in allowing the FAA to identify potential 
operational errors for further review without needing to rely 
on self-reporting. TARP should be used to enhance the safety of 
the system rather than simply be used as a disciplinary tool 
against controllers.
    The Committee notes that the OIG has recommended a number 
of other actions for improving the FAA's ability to track 
operational errors reliably. These recommendations include 
taking various administrative actions, establishing no-notice 
audits of facilities, and giving oversight responsibilities to 
the Office of Air Traffic Oversight [AOV]. The Committee 
understands that the FAA has accepted all of the OIG's 
recommendations and has undertaken additional strategies for 
improving agency accountability. The Committee expects the FAA 
to follow through fully on all of these safety commitments.
    Air Traffic Controller Staffing and Training.--The safety 
of the air transportation system relies on a fully staffed and 
well trained controller workforce. Due to the importance of 
this issue, the Committee continues to include a provision that 
requires the FAA to submit to Congress its annual air traffic 
controller workforce plan by March 31 of each year. Under the 
terms of this provision, the budget of the FAA will be fined by 
$100,000 for each day after March 31 that the report is not 
submitted.
    The FAA faces an unprecedented challenge in training and 
replacing the air traffic controller workforce. Over the next 
few years, record numbers of air traffic controllers will 
become eligible for retirement or hit the mandatory retirement 
age. To maintain safe operations, the FAA must hire and train 
almost 17,000 new air traffic controllers over the next 10 
years. Furthermore, the FAA must bring these new controllers on 
board while the experienced controllers are still available to 
train them. Finally, the FAA must manage all of these changes 
while still continuing to control air traffic safely with a 
controller workforce that is smaller and less experienced than 
the agency had years ago.
    The Committee is concerned that the FAA is not adequately 
meeting this challenge. The agency is seeing a decline in the 
experience level of the air traffic controller workforce. While 
some decline in experience is to be expected as the workforce 
turns over, controllers have been retiring from the workforce 
consistently faster than the FAA has predicted.




    One of the greatest challenges facing the FAA as it 
replaces the controller workforce is the need to maintain an 
appropriate ratio between experienced and trainee controllers 
at each individual facility. The availability of sufficiently 
experienced controllers at each facility is essential to the 
FAA's ability to train new controllers that are assigned to 
that facility to handle traffic at all positions. Even more 
troubling than the overall decline in controller experience 
nationwide has been the severe mismatches in experience levels 
that have surfaced at individual facilities.
    On average, non-certified (developmental) inspectors 
comprise 26 percent of the controller workforce. But at the air 
traffic control tower at Rochester International Airport in New 
York, such non-certified developmental controllers represent 67 
percent of the controller workforce. Roughly 40 percent of the 
controllers are not yet certified at the Las Vegas TRACON 
facility. Even at some of the FAA largest and most complex 
facilities, such as at LaGuardia Tower and the Denver TRACON, 
the percentage of non-certified developmental controllers is as 
high as 35 percent.
    Since experienced controllers must first be utilized to 
control traffic before they can be made available to train new 
controllers, such experience mismatches at individual 
facilities significantly undermine the FAA's ability to 
adequately train and advance new controllers at those 
facilities. The precipitous decline in experience levels at 
certain facilities has required the FAA Administrator to 
initiate an unplanned and unbudgeted program of retention 
bonuses just to keep experience controllers on the payroll at 
certain facilities and incentivize other experienced 
controllers to transfer to such facilities.
    To address these troubling problems, the Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $33,738,000 for the Air 
Traffic Organization over and above the FAA's budget request 
for activities that will have a direct impact on air traffic 
controller experience levels and training. Such activities may 
include expanded of hiring contract training instructors, 
paying necessary expenses related to retaining experienced 
controllers, paying the expenses required for attracting 
experienced controllers to job locations where their expertise 
is needed, and accelerating the pace of hiring new controllers. 
The Committee directs the FAA to submit to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations a plan that details how the agency 
expects to spend these additional funds, and what improvements 
the agency expects to accomplish with this plan. The Committee 
directs the FAA to submit this plan within 30 days of 
enactment.




    Mainitaining an adequately trained, experienced controller 
workforce is not just an issue of resources. It requires the 
sustained and meaningful focus of senior FAA managers. As such, 
the Committee is particularly disturbed to read a report from 
the OIG indicating that the FAA has failed to implement a 
number of strategies the agency identified in its first 
controller workforce plan back in 2004. These strategies 
include implementing a policy that sets training ``as a 
priority second only to operations,'' maintaining an accurate 
database on training, using the database to identify national 
and facility-level trends, and conducting a thorough review of 
FAA training to ensure that on-the-job training begins where 
training at the Academy ends. The Committee expects the FAA to 
implement these strategies promptly, and directs the FAA to 
report on the agency's progress in its next controller 
workforce plan.
    The Committee also directs the FAA to include in its next 
controller workforce plan facility-by-facility information on 
the number of certified controllers, controllers in training, 
and developmental controllers. The FAA has argued that such 
data could only capture a snapshot in time, making the 
information incomplete and misleading. The Committee strongly 
disagrees. The FAA publishes the controller workforce plan 
annually, and the Committee believes that facility-level data 
is necessary for making year-to-year comparisons and watching 
for troubling trends, including severe experience mismatches at 
individual facilities. The Committee hopes that the FAA's 
reluctance to provide this information to the Congress does not 
reflect a general unwillingness on the part of FAA management 
to evaluate meaningful data and watch for relevant trends.
    Finally, the Committee directs the FAA to include in its 
next controller workforce plan a new benchmark for each 
facility for evaluating the proportion of certified controllers 
to controllers-in-training and developmental controllers. The 
FAA has frequently said that it works to keep the percentage of 
noncertified controllers below a benchmark of 35 percent. 
However, this benchmark was developed to measure the number of 
controllers that can be processed through the Academy, not the 
number of controllers that can be trained at any given 
facility. Furthermore, as discussed above, the percentage of 
uncertified controllers varies greatly facility-by-facility. 
The Committee therefore directs the FAA to develop a relevant 
benchmark for assessing the experience level at each facility. 
The Committee cannot understand how the leadership at FAA 
headquarters can feel confident in its workforce plans when it 
does not have the appropriate benchmarks in place for measuring 
progress.
    Training Simulators.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$24,400,000 for NAS training simulators that will help the FAA 
train the growing numbers of new, inexperienced air traffic 
controllers in the FAA workforce. This funding level is an 
increase of $12,400,000 above the budget request. These 
additional funds will allow the FAA to purchase 14 more 
simulators than the agency had assumed under its budget 
request. The funding is provided in the ``Facilities and 
Equipment'' account.
    The FAA relies on experienced, certified air traffic 
controllers to train its new hires, but with the experienced 
controllers quickly retiring from the workforce, simulators are 
becoming an important part of the FAA's plan for training its 
new hires. Using simulators improves the efficiency of FAA 
training because they allow developmental controllers to learn 
their job even at times when experienced controllers are not 
available for traditional on-the-job training.
    Performance Based Navigation.--The Committee provides 
$39,200,000 for Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP, an 
increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request. Performance 
Based Navigation, specifically Area Navigation [RNAV] and 
Required Navigation Performance [RNP], is an extremely 
important aspect of the NextGen transportation system and an 
important key to minimizing delays and congestion, producing 
benefits in the short and intermediate term. These procedures 
cut down on emissions, fuel burn, and noise, and can 
potentially save system uses millions of dollars per year by 
allowing aircraft to fly routes other than those dictated by 
the traditional point-to-point ground based navigational aid 
system that has existed since the dawn of commercial aviation. 
These procedures can also be used to de-conflict arrivals and 
departures into and out of congested airspace containing 
closely spaced airports. The procedures can also minimize the 
potential for mid-air collisions in densely packed airspace. 
RNAV and RNP procedures can also be used to navigate into and 
out of airports in mountainous terrain, such as Juneau, Alaska, 
or near sensitive restricted airspace, such as at Reagan 
National Airport in Washington, DC.
    Considering the myriad benefits of all forms of Performance 
Based Navigation and the importance to NextGen to the future of 
the National Airspace System, the Committee is disappointed 
that the FAA does not indicate how much is requested for the 
RNAV/RNP group within the Air Traffic Organization in the 
agency's budget justification documentation submitted to 
Congress. Also, considering that funding is spread between 
three different offices to carry out the mission of Performance 
Based Navigation, it becomes very difficult for the public, 
Congress, and even agency personnel to be able to track the 
performance and spending history of this critical office. While 
Systems Operations, Aviation System Standards, and Flight 
Standards all have legitimate reasons for being involved in the 
RNAV/RNP process, this organizational structure creates an 
overly bureaucratic tangle for funding oversight and policy 
implementation. The Committee directs FAA to include in future 
budget submissions a dedicated section within the Air Traffic 
Organization that details the funding requested for the 
Performance Based Navigation program from all sources and the 
number of new procedures that will be developed from the 
requested funding amounts. The Committee also directs that the 
FAA provide biannual reports to the Committee on the number of 
procedures developed, the average cost of procedure 
development, and all steps taken to streamline the procedure 
approval process and reduce the amount of time it takes to 
develop and certify new procedures.
    With the additional funds provided for RNAV/RNP, the 
Committee directs that Systems Operations and associated 
offices focus on the process of developing new RNAV and RNP 
procedures in the terminal environment of the 35 airports of 
the Operational Evolution Plan. The Committee understands that 
new procedures, as opposed to ``overlays'' of existing or 
previously developed routings, take a considerably longer 
amount of time to develop due to existing airspace constraints 
and other factors. In addition to new procedures, the 
additional funds shall also be used to optimize airspace to 
make full utilization of RNAV/RNP technology.
    Medallion Program.--The Committee recommends $2,500,000 to 
continue the Medallion program, a Government and industry 
cooperative program to improve rural air safety in Alaska. The 
program is an enhanced safety management system that takes a 
business-like approach to safety, through the use of system 
safety concepts such as: hazard identification and risk 
management, sharing of operational control responsibilities, 
and the development of safety objectives. As air travel is 
sometimes the only means to access remote areas in Alaska, this 
program trains aviators in the diverse hazardous conditions 
Alaskan pilots face in order to sustain an elevated level of 
safety performance.
    TRACON Security Staffing.-- The Committee is concerned 
about the lack of appropriate security staffing at the Terminal 
Radar Approach Control facility in Seattle, Washington. 
Security staffing is vital to ensure the safety of controllers 
at this facility and smooth functioning of air traffic control 
in and around the Puget Sound region. The Committee directs the 
agency to evaluate this staffing shortfall and allocate the 
appropriate level of security staffing resources at this 
facility.

                            AVIATION SAFETY

    Critical Lapse in Safety Accountability.--In 2007, an FAA 
safety inspector came forward as a whistleblower and reported 
that his immediate supervisor had knowingly allowed Southwest 
Airlines to carry passengers on certain aircraft long after 
they had missed mandatory inspection deadlines. After a 
thorough audit, the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] found 
that the supervisor maintained an inappropriate and ``cozy'' 
relationship with Southwest Airlines, helping the airline avoid 
FAA rules and enforcement actions. The supervisor prevented his 
safety inspector from doing his job and conducting inspections 
of Southwest Airlines. The supervisor also allowed Southwest 
Airlines to self-disclose safety violations even though the FAA 
was already aware of the problem, and the airline continued to 
violate the rule even after the self-disclosure. These 
circumstances break the rules of the self-disclosure program.
    Even as Congress and the public were discovering the true 
extent of the problem, the FAA denied that it was anything more 
than the work of a few ``bad apples.'' The Committee, however, 
believes that the incident reveals several systemic failures of 
the FAA, including the failure of FAA managers to honor their 
role as regulators of aviation safety, encouraging their safety 
inspectors to view airlines as ``customers'' rather than 
regulated entities; the failure of the leadership at FAA 
headquarters to pay attention to the performance of its field 
offices the failure of the FAA to follow the rules of its own 
self-disclosure programs; and the failure of FAA managers to 
support and protect their own inspectors--yanking inspectors 
from their duties after receiving anonymous and unsubstantiated 
complaints from the airlines.
    As the Committee continued to look into this incident, it 
became clear that the FAA's inspection lapses extended well 
beyond Southwest Airlines. In testimony before the Committee, 
the Administrator conceded that the FAA was behind schedule in 
completing safety inspections for a number of other airlines. 
The Administrator committed to providing specific data on how 
many airlines have missed inspections, and which inspections 
were overdue. When it arrived, the Committee was dismayed to 
discover that a total of eight airlines had over 100 overdue 
safety inspections. Some of these inspections were in high 
priority areas such as ``aircraft worthiness,'' and ``major 
repairs and alterations.''
    The FAA Administrator has personally committed himself to 
ensuring that these inspections will be completed. He testified 
before the Committee, saying, ``I'm giving you my word that 
we're going to address this [that certain inspections were not 
done for nine years] and have a national oversight capability 
in as timely a manner as possible.''.
    The missed inspections raise serious questions about the 
ability of FAA headquarters to oversee the operation of its 
field offices. In the case of Southwest Airlines, the FAA 
supervisor gave higher priority to serving the airline than to 
safeguarding the American public. The missed inspections should 
have served as the first sign to FAA headquarters that there 
were even larger problems with the field office's oversight of 
the airline. The Committee therefore expects the FAA to 
complete all of the inspections that are currently overdue, and 
more importantly, to investigate any other cases of missed 
inspections or lax oversight in order to uncover more serious 
problems in the future.
    In response to the disclosure of these problems, the FAA is 
upgrading the Air Transportation Safety Oversight System 
[ATOS], the database program the agency uses to manage its 
risk-based safety regime. The FAA has also said that data from 
the ATOS system will be regularly reported to agency 
headquarters. The agency has increased accountability of the 
voluntary disclosure program by requiring airline executives 
and higher levels of FAA managers to sign off on relevant 
documents. The FAA also launched a well publicized series of 
inspections to determine compliance with its most important 
Airworthiness Directives [ADs], the critical safety rules that 
Southwest Airlines had violated. The Committee will discuss 
some of these actions in greater detail below.
    The Committee agrees that the FAA needs to take strong 
action following such a critical lapse in its safety oversight. 
However, the Committee does not believe that actions taken 
after the problems at Southwest and other airlines were 
disclosed in any way mitigates the personal responsibility of 
FAA leadership. The FAA had ample warning that its ATOS system 
did not catch significant holes in its inspection process. In 
2002, the OIG reported, ``Since early 1999, FAA has been aware 
of problems with ATOS. However, the agency has been slow in 
taking corrective actions to address known problems.'' The OIG 
reported again in 2005, ``In fiscal year 2003 when air carriers 
were making significant changes to streamline operations and 
reduce costs, inspectors for five network air carriers were 
reviewed did not complete 26 percent of their planned 
inspections. Of the inspections not completed, 55 percent were 
in areas of the air carrier's operation that were identified as 
being at risk.''
    FAA leadership also had many opportunities to determine 
that the culture of safety had broken down in the office in 
charge of inspecting Southwest Airlines. The safety inspector 
tried to notify FAA leadership many times before turning to the 
whistleblower process in order to ensure that his story would 
be heard.
    Finally, it was particularly disappointing to learn that 
critical safety inspections were not being done by FAA 
inspectors. The Committee has provided extra funding over and 
above the FAA budget request in 7 of at least 10 years to boost 
the number of inspectors and ensure that such critical 
inspections would be completed routinely while the 
administration has committed to complicity all such overdue 
inspections within a year.
    The Committee cannot wait a year before learning that the 
FAA has not made sufficient progress in bringing these 
inspections up to date. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
FAA to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations that lists all overdue safety 
attribute inspections and element performance inspections, and 
provides a target date of their completion.
    Use of Data by FAA Headquarters.--As discussed above, in 
order to improve the ability of FAA headquarters to oversee the 
work of its field offices, the FAA is requiring field offices 
to regularly report ATOS data to headquarters staff. However, 
this requirement will not result in any improvements unless 
managers at FAA headquarters actually analyze this data and 
manage the inspector workforce accordingly. The Committee 
therefore directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations that verifies that this 
data is being submitted to FAA headquarters, describes the 
analysis conducted by headquarters staff using this data, and 
evaluates the effectiveness of FAA's use of this data to 
monitor the work of FAA field offices. The Committee directs 
the OIG to submit this report within 6 months of enactment.
    Demonstrations of AD Compliance.--As discussed above, 
following the lapse in safety oversight of Southwest Airlines, 
the FAA ran a well publicized series of inspections to 
determine compliance with its most important ADs. Although 
American Airlines believed its aircraft were in full compliance 
with FAA directives, the audit uncovered problems with the 
airline's compliance with an AD that proscribes fixes to the 
wiring on MD-80 aircraft. While the FAA had already granted 
American Airlines 18 months to fix the wiring problem, the 
environment following the disclosure of the safety lapses of 
Southwest resulted in FAA immediately grounding its fleet of 
MD-80s. The cancellation of hundreds of flights resulted in 
sever travel disruptions to hundreds of thousands of travelers 
the urgent round of audits that followed the Southwest 
incident. Without conducting this audit, however, it is likely 
that the FAA would not have discovered the problem for months 
or perhaps years. No physical inspections were conducted or 
scheduled for MD-80s to ensure compliance with this AD prior to 
its random selection as part of the system-wide audit.
    It is clear that a process must be developed that allows 
certificate holders to demonstrate their interpretation of AD 
compliance and for FAA inspection personnel to have the 
opportunity to conduct physical inspections of aircraft to 
verify compliance. Only through such a process can the 
disruptions that befell the American Airlines passengers be 
avoided. The Committee has learned that the Secretary of 
Transportation's independent panel reviewing all aspects of the 
airworthiness directive compliance regime is examining a 
prototype process for certificate holders to demonstrate 
compliance. The Committee directs the FAA and DOT to continue 
to work towards developing an AD prototype process that 
incorporates the Committee's concerns and to report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations immediately upon 
developing a prototype process.
    Safety Inspector Staffing.--Aviation Safety requires a 
fully staffed inspector workforce. For this reason, the 
Committee continues to include a provision that requires the 
FAA to submit to Congress its annual inspector workforce plan 
by March 31 of each year. Under the terms of this provision, 
the budget of the FAA will be fined by $100,000 for each day 
after March 31 that the report is not submitted.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the FAA's 
ability to reach its staffing goals. The Committee believes 
that the FAA benefits from meeting its goals through a planned, 
regular hiring process rather than through hiring surges at the 
end of the fiscal year. The figure below shows recent history 
for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification staffing levels 
as well as the staffing goals for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 
While the Committee notes that the FAA appears to be in a good 
position for reaching its goals for the current fiscal year it 
is dismayed the agency failed to prepare for fiscal year 2009 
by budgeting adequately for the additional inspections that the 
Committee provided over and above the FAA's budget request for 
fiscal year 2008. As discussed below, the Committee has made 
the necessary budget adjustments to rectify this problem. 



    Increased Resources for Safety Oversight.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $32,000,000 that was not 
included in the original FAA budget request submitted by the 
FAA. This additional funding will help the FAA increase its 
safety inspection staff by 75 positions, improve its safety 
surveillance, and replace funding for other vital safety 
activities that have been displaced by the agency's urgent need 
to increase its inspection activities. The Committee directs 
the FAA to allocate the additional funding as presented in the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Activity                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualize additional positions added in fiscal year
 2008:
    125 positions added through appropriations act......      $8,500,000
    57 positions added during the year..................       8,400,000
Increase surveillance activity:
    75 additional safety inspection positions...........       6,400,000
    Support for the inspector staffing model............       1,000,000
    Increased review of alternative means of compliance.         320,000
    Repair, Alteration, and Fabrication initiatives.....       2,000,000
    Continued airworthiness and safety improvements.....         900,000
    Support safety issues reporting system and                   200,000
     whistleblower activities...........................
Replace funding for displaced work:
    Aircraft certification..............................         800,000
    Element Performance Inspections.....................       3,480,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................      32,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that the administration's budget 
submission for aviation safety is irresponsible and lacks 
credibility. At the time it was developing its budget request 
for fiscal year 2009, the FAA was already well aware of the 
critical lapses in its oversight regime. Even so, the FAA 
failed to request the funding necessary to bring its inspection 
staffing level up to a level necessary and to implement 
improvements to its oversight programs.
    The Committee is particularly galled to note that the 
budget request submitted by the FAA does not include enough 
funding to annualize the cost of increases to the inspector 
workforce that the Committee provided for fiscal year 2008. The 
Committee does not understand how the FAA could decide to put 
its inspection capabilities at risk by not requesting the funds 
necessary to pay the full cost of the inspectors' salaries.
    For fiscal year 2009, the Committee is again providing 
increases to the FAA budget request in order to strengthen the 
inspector workforce. The additional funding is provided because 
supporting the inspector workforce continues to be a high 
priority for the Committee, and it is hoped that it will become 
a higher priority for the administration. The Committee expects 
the FAA to include the fully annualized the cost of the 
additional inspectors in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. 
However, if the administration chooses not to fund the cost of 
these inspectors, then the Committee directs the FAA to display 
accurately the proposed changes to the program's base, to 
disclose how many inspector positions would be affected by this 
proposal, and to fully justify the proposed cut to the 
inspector workforce.
    Finally, the Committee directs the FAA to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that 
delineates changes to the number of inspectors currently on 
board with the agency from the beginning of fiscal year 2009 
until March 31, 2009. The report should provide side-by-side 
displays of number of inspector losses opposite the number of 
inspector gains. The Committee directs the FAA to transmit this 
report to the Committee by April 10, 2009.
    Inspector Workload.--The Committee agrees with the FAA, the 
OIG, and the Government Accountability Office that the FAA must 
use a risk-based system in order to effectively oversee the 
safety of the aviation industry, which is growing in size and 
complexity every year. A risk-based approach still requires 
physical inspections, but it significantly changes the balance 
of work completed at the desk and in the field.
    Since the FAA first began implementing its risk-based 
system and deploying the ATOS database, questions have been 
raised about whether or not the FAA has struck the right 
balance between the time inspectors field inspections the time 
they spend reviewing airline paperwork data analysis. Such 
questions have grown more pressing since the disclosure of the 
FAA's safety lapses.
    The Committee believes that these questions cannot be 
answered until the FAA can inform the debate with essential 
information. The Committee directs the FAA to convene a working 
group that will develop a benchmark against which to measure 
the amount of time FAA safety inspectors spend in the field. 
The Committee directs the FAA to include representatives from 
the safety inspector workforce in this working group. This 
benchmark should provide the FAA with a floor against which to 
measure actual the workload of FAA inspectors and determines 
whether sufficient field inspections are being conducted at 
each facility. Should the FAA find that safety inspectors are 
not spending a sufficient amount of time conducting field work, 
the agency will complete further investigations as to the cause 
and implications of its findings. Finally, the Committee 
directs the FAA to include this benchmark and the actual 
measurement in its next inspector workforce plan.
    Inspector Staffing Model.--The FAA has acknowledged that it 
does not have an adequate methodology for locating its safety 
inspectors in the field. This issue has particular relevance as 
air carriers continue to outsource an unprecedented level of 
repair work. This outsourced work includes significant repairs 
as well as ongoing maintenance, and the work is frequently 
completed overseas. These complications underscore the need to 
for the FAA to understand where the work is being done and to 
have a rigorous methodology for placing its safety inspectors 
around the globe.
    The FAA is currently developing a complex staffing model to 
help the agency determine how many inspectors it needs on board 
and where those inspectors should be placed. In fiscal year 
2009, the FAA expects to complete the research that will 
support its staffing model, identify commercial software for 
running the model, and begin customizing the software for the 
agency's particular needs. The Committee expects the FAA to 
keep to this schedule, and as noted above, the Committee has 
provided an additional $1,000,000 to expedite the completion of 
the model.
    Prohibition on NY/NJ Area Slot Auctions.--On May 16, 2008, 
the Department of Transportation issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking [NPRM] that addressed restrictions pertaining to 
commercial aircraft operations in the New York/New Jersey area. 
The proposed rule, among other things, proposed to maintain 
agency-imposed caps on the number of permissible aircraft 
operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) as 
well as Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). A separate 
cap is already in place at LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The 
imposition of these caps has been a central element in the 
DOT's effort to reduce congestion in and around the New York/
New Jersey airspace--one of the busiest areas of air traffic in 
the world. Given the extraordinary percentage of flights that 
traverse the New York/New Jersey airspace, it is hoped that 
such efforts to reduce the number of flights in this region 
will also serve to alleviate congestion throughout the national 
airspace system [NAS].
    Separate from the imposition of aircraft operations caps, 
the DOT's NPRM also seeks to impose a highly controversial 
``slot auction'' system for these same airports. The initiative 
would not serve to further limit aircraft operations. Rather, 
it would seek merely to reallocate landing and take-off slots 
between the air carriers serving the region by auctioning off a 
percentage of these slots to the highest bidders.
    The Committee has serious questions regarding both the 
legality and the wisdom of this aspect of the DOT's proposed 
rule. First, the annual DOT Appropriations Act has long 
included a provision that prohibits the FAA from finalizing or 
implementing any regulation that would promulgate new aviation 
user fees not specifically authorized by law. Aspects of the 
new NPRM certainly appear to violate this long-standing 
restriction. Indeed, even the DOT itself has questioned its 
legal standing to put forward this proposal. In a Federal 
Register notice dated August 29, 2006, the DOT stated that 
``[L]egislation would be necessary to employ market-based 
approaches such as auctions or congestion pricing at LaGuardia 
because the FAA currently does not have the statutory authority 
to assess market-clearing charges for a landing or departure 
authorization.''
    The Committee believes strongly that a comprehensive policy 
change such as the slot auction proposal should be considered 
and debated as part of comprehensive aviation authorization 
legislation, not through a controversial and illegal rulemaking 
process promulgated by an outgoing administration. As such, the 
Committee has included a provision (Sec. 116) that prohibits 
DOT from finalizing the slot auction aspects of its NPRM. 
Nothing in that prohibition will serve to limit the DOT's 
ability to impose either voluntary or mandatory operational 
caps for the purpose of truly addressing aviation congestion in 
the New York/New Jersey area.

                        FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $2,513,611,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   2,724,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,749,595,000

                          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 $2,749,595,000 
for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. The Committee recommendation is $25,595,000 
more than the budget estimate and $235,984,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The bill provides that 
$2,288,845,000 shall be available for obligation until 
September 30, 2011, and $460,500,000 shall be available until 
September 30, 2009.
    FAA's Modernization Performance.--About 30 years ago, the 
FAA began a massive effort to modernize its air traffic control 
system. Before the end of fiscal year 2008, the cost of this 
modernization is expected to reach over $50,000,000,000. Over 
the course of the past three decades, however, the FAA has 
developed a track record of cost overruns, schedule delays, and 
unmet expectations. Some of these problems can be attributed to 
the complex nature of the undertaking, but the FAA still 
shoulders much of the responsibility. The agency has repeatedly 
done a poor job of defining the requirements and cost estimates 
for its modernization programs.
    The FAA now must continue to upgrade the existing air 
traffic control system at the same time that it starts a new 
effort to completely transform that system with satellite-based 
technology and network-centric operations. The demand for air 
transportation will soon outgrow the capacity of the current 
system. The FAA effort to develop a completely new way to 
manage the national airspace system [NAS] is already decades 
late. Given the complexity and the expense that this new effort 
will entail, American taxpayers cannot afford the FAA to repeat 
the mistakes of its past.
    The Committee feels encouraged by signs that the FAA is 
improving its management of capital programs. In a recent 
report on the modernization of the current air traffic control 
system, the OIG offers some commendation, saying, ``Overall, we 
found that FAA has done a better job of managing cost growth 
and schedule delays with its major acquisitions since we last 
reported.'' The Committee also notes that the FAA has just 
lowered its budget for the Air Traffic Control Beacon 
Interrogator Replacement program by about $27,000,000 while 
adding to its current workload. In addition, the FAA this year 
added sites to the Free Flight Phase II program while keeping 
to its current budget.
    Although these changes are small in comparison to the 
billions of dollars of cost growth that the FAA has allowed in 
the past, they are welcome signs of improved management.
    Incremental Investments and Rebaselining.--In its report on 
FAA management of its modernization program, the OIG explains 
that the FAA has been able to improve its track record on cost 
and schedule growth in part by taking ``a more incremental 
approach to investment decisions to modernize controller 
displays, radars, and communication equipment.'' The OIG 
further explains that ``rebaselining'' procedures have also 
served to help the FAA control costs and schedule delays. The 
FAA rebaselines all programs in danger of exceeding their 
budgets or schedules by 10 percent or more. This process 
requires the FAA to conduct a complete analysis of the 
program's current costs and benefits, and to provide a new 
justification for the program before proceeding any further.
    Last year, the Committee condemned the FAA for using the 
rebaselining procedures as a way to obscure the failure of the 
FAA to stay within program budgets and schedules. The then-FAA 
Administrator had been publicly boasting that she was 
delivering 100 percent of her programs on time and on budget, 
even though many of those programs had been rebaselined after 
experiencing significant increases in their costs and lengthy 
delays in their schedules. The Committee was focused on the 
abuse of the rebaselining process, not on its appropriate use 
as a program management tool. The Committee is aware that 
active oversight of capital programs, such as rebaselining, has 
proven an effective tool against expanding costs and schedules.
    The OIG has cautioned, however, that an incremental 
approach and rebaselining procedures are not without drawbacks, 
and they are vulnerable to abuse. The FAA is able to mitigate 
risk in the near term, but breaking programs into smaller parts 
also means that the end goal and the overall costs become 
difficult to track and mask the fact that system users and 
taxpayers are getting less than was originally promised. Past 
examples of how these approaches can be abused include the ASR-
11 radar program. FAA rebaselined the program in 2005, breaking 
it into two segments. The first segment will produce 66 systems 
for $697,000,000 by fiscal year 2009, whereas the original 
program was expected to produce 112 systems for $743,000,000 by 
2005. The cost went down, but fewer systems are being delivered 
and at a later date. Furthermore, FAA is postponing any 
investment decisions on the second segment of the program.
    Incrementalism and NextGen.--The Committee notes that the 
challenges facing the FAA as it works to transform the air 
transportation system cannot be easily addressed with 
rebaselining procedures. For the ``next generation'' air 
transportation system, or ``NextGen,'' the FAA must translate 
initial concepts and ideas into real programs with specific 
requirements, milestones, and cost estimates. These programs 
will be expensive and far more complex than what the FAA has 
completed to date.
    The Committee is concerned that an incremental approach to 
program management will not serve the agency well as it 
develops NextGen. The Committee believes that the FAA must be 
able to track its investments against a clear endgame in order 
to transform the system efficiently and affordably. The 
Committee believes that the FAA is already failing to reach for 
new capabilities when it makes investment decisions for two 
programs in the agency's portfolio: Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] and System-Wide Information 
Management [SWIM]. These programs will likely form the 
foundation for NextGen, but the FAA is not putting enough 
emphasis on achieving new capabilities. These programs will be 
discussed in greater detail below.
    Finally, the Committee notes that the FAA has not yet 
brought detail to how the agency will accomplish the NextGen 
transformation. According to the OIG, the FAA must develop an 
Enterprise Architecture that will serve as a technical roadmap 
to NextGen, showing how the system will work and what changes 
are necessary to make that happen. Although the FAA is 
currently developing such an Enterprise Architecture, the 
planning documents for NextGen still lack detail. The FAA can 
not yet delineate its requirements or develop realistic cost 
estimates. For this reason, the Committee does not feel 
confident that the FAA knows how to it will move from the 
current system to NextGen.
    To help the FAA establish a more clear path toward NextGen, 
the OIG recommends ``that FAA develop and track written 
criteria for selecting project milestones that are used to 
track Agency progress with major acquisitions; develop metrics 
for measuring NextGen progress that focus on enhancing 
capacity, boosting productivity, or reducing Agency operating 
costs; complete a gap analysis of the current NAS and planned 
NextGen enterprise architectures; and establish an interim 
architecture to establish priorities that will allow FAA to 
accurately determine costs and NextGen requirements.'' The 
Committee urges the FAA to follow the recommendations of the 
OIG in a timely manner.
    The Committee has included bill language requiring the FAA 
to conduct a gap analysis, set midterm goals for the completion 
of NextGen, and develop the interim architecture that will 
allow the FAA achieve those midterm goals by 2017. The interim 
architecture must include the estimated cost of each new 
capability that the FAA will achieve by 2017. The bill requires 
the FAA to submit this interim architecture at the same time as 
the President's budget submission to the Congress.
    Increased Capacity and NextGen.--Considering the fact that 
the primary goal of NextGen is to triple capacity by the year 
2025, the Committee is extremely troubled by the fact that none 
of the budget justifications, planning documents, or enterprise 
architecture documents detail how each initiative in NextGen 
will reduce delays and congestion between now and 2025.
    The Committee directs the FAA and the Joint Planning and 
Development Office [JPDO] to include in future budget 
justifications and NextGen planning documents a full 
explanation and quantitative estimate of how much each new 
capability will reduce congestion, increase capacity and 
decrease delays, an explanation of how the data was modeled and 
compiled, and a timeframe for when these capacity improvements 
and delay reduction measures will start to relieve congestion.
    Budget Activities Format.--The Committee directs that the 
fiscal year 2010 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year      Committee
                                                                   2008 enacted    2009 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
    Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.............     $42,760,000     $41,400,000     $42,900,000
    Traffic Management Advisor [TMA]............................      15,400,000       3,700,000       3,700,000
    NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory................       1,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities...............      12,000,000      12,000,000      12,000,000
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure                  4,200,000       5,400,000       5,400,000
     Sustainment................................................
    Next Generation Network Enabled Weather.....................       7,000,000      20,000,000      20,000,000
    Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations [NGATS].       7,400,000      28,800,000      28,800,000
    Next Generation Transportation System Technology Demonstra-       50,000,000      28,000,000      28,000,000
     tion.......................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--System Development...  ..............      41,400,000      41,400,000
    Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory Based       ..............      39,500,000      39,500,000
     Operations.................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Weather Reduction      ..............      14,400,000      14,400,000
     Impact.....................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--High Density Arrivals/ ..............      18,200,000      18,200,000
     Departures.................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM....  ..............      27,700,000      27,700,000
    Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals     ..............      37,100,000      37,100,000
     and Airports...............................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Safety Security and    ..............       8,000,000       8,000,000
     Environment................................................
    Next Generation Transportation System--Networked Facilities.  ..............      17,000,000      17,000,000
    Safeflight 21--Capstone.....................................      15,000,000  ..............  ..............
    Next Generation Integrated Airport..........................       1,960,000  ..............  ..............
    ADS-B Air to Air Capabilities...............................       9,350,000  ..............  ..............
    ADS-B Three Nautical Mile Separation........................  ..............  ..............       6,765,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Activity 1.........................................     166,070,000     343,600,000     351,865,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 2, Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
    En Route Programs:
        En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM]................     368,750,000     203,050,000     203,050,000
        En Route Communications Gateway [ECG]...................       4,000,000       7,400,000       7,400,000
        Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--Provide.........       3,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Air Traffic Control System Command Center [ATCSCC]--           2,500,000      28,600,000      28,600,000
         Relocation.............................................
        ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements..........      52,900,000      56,500,000      56,500,000
        Air Traffic Management (ATM)............................      90,600,000      90,200,000      90,200,000
        Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure................      26,200,000       7,500,000       7,500,000
        ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI]--Replacement............      20,200,000      13,000,000      13,000,000
        Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities                  5,300,000       5,300,000       5,300,000
         Improvements...........................................
        Voice Switching and Control System [VSCS]...............      15,700,000      23,300,000      23,300,000
        Oceanic Automation System...............................      53,100,000      20,700,000      20,700,000
        Corrider Weather Integrated System [CWIS]...............       2,100,000       5,900,000       5,900,000
        San Juan Radar Approach Control [CERAP].................       8,000,000       6,000,000       6,000,000
        Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground                30,400,000      46,400,000      46,400,000
         Communications System [NEXCOM].........................
        System-Wide Information Management......................      23,358,000      41,000,000      49,000,000
        ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation...........................      85,650,000     300,000,000     300,000,000
        En Route System Modification............................       4,300,000  ..............  ..............
        Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure...............       8,500,000  ..............  ..............
        ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network......................       3,500,000  ..............  ..............
        Military Operations/Automated Detection and Processing         1,600,000  ..............  ..............
         Terminal [ADAPT].......................................
        Automated Detection and Processing Terminal [ADAPT].....       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
        Volcano Monitoring......................................       2,666,000  ..............  ..............
        Wind Hazard Detection Equipment.........................         784,000  ..............         850,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, En Route Programs...........................     814,108,000     857,850,000     866,700,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Terminal Programs:
        Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X]...      40,600,000      32,700,000      32,700,000
        Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]--Provide..........       8,000,000       6,100,000       6,100,000
        Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]       31,200,000      28,200,000      28,200,000
         (TAMR Phase 1).........................................
        Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program          6,800,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
         (TAMR Phase 3).........................................
        Terminal Automation Program.............................       2,300,000       4,300,000       4,300,000
        Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace........     162,630,000     134,295,476     134,545,476
        ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON]                 47,000,000      37,900,000      37,900,000
         Facilities--Improve....................................
        Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR]................      12,300,000       8,400,000       8,400,000
        NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards               26,000,000      26,000,000      26,000,000
         Compliance.............................................
        Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9]......................      11,200,000       8,800,000       8,800,000
        Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11].........................      20,300,000      17,100,000      17,100,000
        DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer.............................       1,300,000       1,400,000       1,400,000
        Precision Runway Monitors...............................       9,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
        Runway Status Lights....................................       9,000,000      26,960,000      26,960,000
        National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS].............       3,000,000      10,000,000      10,000,000
        Weather System Processor [WSP]..........................       4,100,000         700,000         700,000
        Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP]...............      10,500,000      10,800,000      10,800,000
        Houston Area Air Traffic System [HAATS].................       4,000,000       3,600,000       3,600,000
        Integrated Display System [IDS].........................  ..............       7,000,000       7,000,000
        ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program....................  ..............       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS]...............      13,200,000       4,500,000       4,500,000
        Integrated Control and Monitoring.......................       1,960,000  ..............  ..............
        Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance................         686,000  ..............  ..............
        ASR-8 Radar Relocation..................................         980,000  ..............  ..............
        ASDE-X Relocation and Upgrade--Sea-Tac..................       4,900,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Terminal Programs...........................     430,956,000     375,755,476     376,005,476
                                                                 ===============================================
    Flight Service Programs:
        Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS]...............       5,000,000       8,500,000       8,500,000
        Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization..............       5,100,000      14,600,000      14,600,000
        Weather Camera Program (moved from Safeflight)..........       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Flight Service Programs.....................      12,100,000      25,100,000      25,100,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
        VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance            5,000,000       7,500,000       7,500,000
         Measuring Equipment [DME]..............................
        Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish..............      15,094,000       7,500,000       7,750,000
        Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS............     105,900,000      99,000,000      92,570,000
        Runway Visual Range [RVR]...............................       5,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]....      19,312,000      10,000,000      12,500,000
        Distance Measuring Equipment [DME]......................       5,000,000       6,000,000       6,000,000
        Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand........................       3,500,000       1,700,000       1,700,000
        Instrument Flight Procedures Automation [IFPA]..........      17,800,000      10,900,000      10,900,000
        Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension            5,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000
         Program [SLEP].........................................
        VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path         3,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
         Indicator..............................................
        GPS Civil Requirements..................................  ..............      20,700,000      20,700,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Landing and Navigational Aids Programs......     184,606,000     173,300,000     169,620,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Other ATC Facilities Programs:
        Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring............       5,900,000       6,100,000       6,100,000
        Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment....................      13,700,000      15,300,000      15,300,000
        Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local                3,000,000       1,500,000       1,500,000
         Projects)..............................................
        Aircraft Related Equipment Program......................       9,000,000       7,400,000       7,400,000
        Aircraft Related Equipment Program--Boeing Simulator             800,000         400,000         400,000
         Replacement............................................
        Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support...........       5,000,000       7,000,000       7,000,000
        Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS].       2,000,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Facilities Decommissioning..............................       5,400,000       5,000,000       5,000,000
        Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support...............      38,000,000      51,000,000      51,000,000
        Aircraft Fleet Modernization--International Aircraft....  ..............      24,900,000      24,900,000
        Aircraft Fleet Modernization............................       9,000,000       3,000,000       3,000,000
        Computer Engineering and Graphics [CAEG] Modernization..       1,500,000  ..............  ..............
        Energy Management and Efficiency Compliance.............       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Other ATC Facilities Programs...............      95,300,000     126,600,000     126,600,000
                                                                 ===============================================
          Total, Activity 2.....................................   1,537,070,000   1,558,605,476   1,563,775,476
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 3, Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
    Support Equipment:
        Hazardous Materials Management..........................      18,200,000      18,000,000      18,000,000
        Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS]..................      16,900,000      18,900,000      18,900,000
        Logistics Support Systems and Facilities [LSSF].........       6,300,000       9,300,000       9,300,000
        National Air Space [NAS] Recovery Communications  [RCOM]      10,000,000      10,000,000      10,000,000
        Facility Security Risk Management.......................      22,000,000      15,000,000      15,000,000
        Information Security....................................      15,000,000      12,000,000      12,000,000
        System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO].............      11,300,000      14,300,000      14,300,000
        Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment [ASKME]       4,000,000       7,900,000       7,900,000
        Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization........       5,393,000      13,500,000      13,500,000
        National Airspace System [NAS] Training Facilities......       1,900,000       1,400,000       1,400,000
        Distance Learning.......................................       1,400,000       1,500,000       1,500,000
        Test Equipment--Maintenance for Replacement.............       2,500,000  ..............  ..............
        Center for Aviation Research............................       2,250,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Support Equipment...........................     117,143,000     121,800,000     121,800,000
                                                                 ===============================================
    Training, Equipment, and Facilities:
        National Airspace System [NAS] Training--Simulator......      14,600,000      12,000,000      24,400,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Training, Equipment, and Facilities.........      14,600,000      12,000,000      24,400,000
                                                                 ===============================================
          Total, Activity 3.....................................     131,743,000     133,800,000     146,200,000
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
    System Support and Services:
        System Engineering and Development Support..............      30,155,000      32,000,000      32,000,000
        Program Support Leases..................................      40,000,000      43,504,524      43,504,524
        Logistics Support Services [LSS]........................       7,500,000       7,900,000       7,900,000
        Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases................      13,500,000      15,800,000      15,800,000
        Transition Engineering Support..........................      10,700,000      10,700,000      10,700,000
        Frequency and Spectrum Engineering......................       3,400,000       3,500,000       3,500,000
        Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC]..............      20,000,000      22,000,000      22,000,000
        Resource Tracking Program [RTP].........................       3,500,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
        Center for Advanced Aviation System Development  [CAASD]      80,000,000      76,000,000      76,000,000
        Aeronautical Information Management Program.............       9,000,000      11,600,000      11,600,000
        Permanent Change of Station Moves.......................       1,000,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Activity 4.....................................     218,755,000     227,004,524     227,004,524
                                                                 ===============================================
Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses:
    Personnel and Related Expenses--ATO.........................     459,973,000     460,500,000     460,500,000
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, All Activities.....................................   2,513,611,000   2,723,510,000   2,749,595,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

    Runway Obstruction Warning System.--The Committee 
recommends $42,900,000 for Advanced Technology Development and 
Prototype, an increase of $1,500,000 from the budget request. 
The additional resources shall be used to fund the continued 
development, enhancement, and evaluation of the Runway 
Obstruction Warning system at the test bed at Gulfport-Biloxi 
Airport.
    ADS-B.--The Committee recommendation includes an additional 
$6,765,000 to accelerate the development of three nautical mile 
separation in the en route environment, using Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] technology. The 
administration did not request any funding for this activity in 
fiscal year 2009.
    The FAA has 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.
    Last year, the Committee grew concerned that the FAA was 
maintaining a short-sighted view of the ADS-B program by 
focusing its resources on developing ground-to-air capabilities 
without laying an adequate foundation for implementing air-to-
air capabilities. Because of these concerns, the Committee 
provided an additional $9,300,000 for the FAA to expedite the 
development of such air-to-air capabilities. After close 
consultation with the FAA, the Committee refined its directions 
to the agency, giving explicit instructions that the FAA use 
the additional funds for applying ADS-B technology to the 
prevention of runway incursions and the improvement of arrival 
rates.
    The Committee, however, remains concerned that the FAA 
defines its objectives for the ADS-B program too narrowly. The 
FAA has designed the base program for ADS-B so that the 
technology will merely replicate the capabilities that radar 
technology already provides. The FAA has argued that this 
method will prove the potential of ADS-B before requiring the 
technology to perform additional functions. This sort of 
approach is a conservative strategy, using current capabilities 
as a benchmark for success rather than the new capabilities 
that air transportation will soon need.
    Unfortunately, the FAA must complete the transformation of 
air transportation within a limited timeframe, and the 
Committee does not believe that the FAA has the luxury of 
maintaining such a conservative strategy. Furthermore, by 
delaying the investment of its resources in new capabilities, 
the FAA is also postponing the time when ADS-B will produce 
real benefits to the larger aviation community. The Committee 
does not believe that the FAA should automatically structure 
its next generation programs so that all of these benefits 
accrue at the end of substantial investments. Rather, the 
Committee urges the FAA whenever possible to design its 
programs so that they can offer benefits during the course of 
their development and support a meaningful partnership with the 
aviation community.
    Establishing benefits early in a program's development is 
especially critical for a program like ADS-B, which must rely 
heavily on the aviation community to equip aircraft with 
compatible technology. The FAA has already published an NPRM 
that establishes mandatory deadlines for equipping aircraft 
with ADS-B technology. The Committee believes these deadlines 
are necessary to ensure the success of the ADS-B program. 
However, the Committee also believes that the FAA can 
effectively compel the aviation industry to invest in ADS-B 
voluntarily by proffering benefits that can be attained only 
through such equipage.
    If fuel prices continue at their current levels, then the 
FAA will have an especially hard time convincing the aviation 
community to invest in new technologies sooner than the 
regulated deadlines. Airlines today are already making 
unpopular choices such as cutting services and charging for 
baggage in order to save their businesses. Airlines and other 
participants in the national airspace [NAS] are not looking for 
new costs to pay. Before equipping with ADS-B, the industry 
will not only want to see that the FAA is paying its share of 
the expense, it will also want to see what benefits will accrue 
to their operations.
    This year, again, the Committee is providing additional 
resources over and above the budget request to further the 
development of ADS-B capabilities. The Committee directs the 
FAA to use the additional $6,765,000 to accelerate the 
development of three nautical mile separation in the en route 
environment.
    This closer separation standard will increase the capacity 
of the en route environment. It is also expected to reduce 
delays that occur because aircraft must transition between the 
terminal environment, which allows separation of 3 nautical 
miles, and the en route environment, which requires separation 
of 5 nautical miles. Because aircraft cannot instantaneously 
change their separation at the border of these two 
environments, they must transition to or from the larger 
separation standard while still operating in the terminal 
environment. Applying the 3 nautical mile separation to the en 
route environment would eliminate these areas of inefficiency 
and increase the capacity of the NAS.

              AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

    En Route Automation Modernization.--The Committee 
recommends $203,050,000 for the En Route Automation 
Modernization [ERAM] program. This funding level is equal to 
the budget request, and $165,700,000 less than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level. Fiscal year 2008 was the peak year of 
funding for this program, and the annual cost of the program is 
expected to continue at this lower level.
    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 continuing to manage the 
program thus far within its budget and schedule. The success of 
this program depends largely on 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 procurement programs.
    The Committee notes that the FAA is currently focusing on 
the largest and most complex aspects of the ERAM program. 
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.
    System-Wide Information Management.--The Committee 
recommends $49,000,000 for the System-Wide Information 
Management [SWIM] program. This funding level is $8,000,000 
more than the budget request, and $25,642,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    The FAA has identified the SWIM program as one of the 
foundations for building the next generation air transportation 
system. Under SWIM, the FAA is developing a new architecture 
that will enable all of the individual FAA systems to 
communicate and share data.
    The Committee continues to be supportive of the SWIM 
program, but the Committee is concerned that the FAA is not 
developing a program that will deliver on the agency's 
promises. The Committee understands that SWIM should provide a 
central architecture and include the security, governance and 
data exchange services that are necessary to link the other FAA 
programs. Yet, the FAA is directing the majority of its funding 
to these other programs in order to develop services in a more 
decentralized way. Of the $41,000,000 requested for SWIM in 
fiscal year 2009, the FAA proposes to redirect $27,600,000 to 
other capital programs. Using the funds for other capital 
programs appears to undermine the FAA's efforts to develop the 
core capabilities of the SWIM program.
    The Committee also questions whether the FAA is placing a 
high enough priority on achieving new capabilities with the 
SWIM program. The SWIM program is an essential part of moving 
toward network-enabled operations [NEO]. NEO will make it 
possible for the FAA, other Government agencies, and users of 
the NAS to share information efficiently and effectively. Two 
demonstrations have already proven the concept and illustrated 
the many benefits of NEO, but the FAA has not requested any 
funds for the actual implementation of this technology.
    For these reasons, the bill includes an additional 
$8,000,000 to begin implementation of the Network Enabled 
Operations [NEO] program. The Committee directs the FAA to use 
these funds on the deployment of new capabilities that will 
begin providing benefits to the larger aviation community, 
including: dynamic use of special use airspace; use of dynamic 
airspace control for temporary flight restrictions that 
accommodates the movement of unmanned aerial systems; network-
enabled distribution of enhanced traffic management system 
information for improved common situation awareness between 
authorized subscribers; and targeted NEO applications for 
contingency operations to distribute integrated information to 
authorized, on-site, State and local organizations.
    The Committee directs the FAA to submit to the Committee a 
report which details how the FAA plans to spend the $8,000,000 
and which capabilities the FAA will deploy with the funding. 
The Committee further directs the FAA to submit to the 
Committee a report that provides a thorough discussion on the 
lessons learned during the deployment of these new 
capabilities, and how such lessons can be used to accelerate 
the benefits of the SWIM program. The Committee directs the FAA 
to submit this report no later than 60 days after completing 
the deployment of these new capabilities
    Wind Hazard Detection Equipment.--The Committee 
recommendation includes an additional $850,000 for the purchase 
of a Wind Tracer Wind Hazard Detection equipment and its 
installation at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, 
Nevada. Wind Tracer is laser-driven technology that measures 
winds, wind hazards and turbulence in airport terminal areas in 
dry, clear air. The equipment allows the detection and alerting 
of events such as dry microbursts, wind shears, gust fronts, 
and other hazards. The equipment commonly used by the FAA is 
very good at detecting these events in wet, humid conditions. 
However, it is less effective in the dry, clear climate of Las 
Vegas. This funding, in combination with resources provided for 
this purpose in fiscal year 2008, should be sufficient to 
ensure the near-term installation of this important safety 
tool.
    Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $32,700,000 for the Airport 
Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X] program, a 
funding level that is equal to the budget request and 
$7,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    ASDE-X technology is designed to prevent runway incursions 
by providing air traffic controllers with more accurate and 
detailed information about the current situation on airport 
surfaces. However, the program has significant limitations. 
First, ASDE-X still relies on air traffic controllers to convey 
urgent information to the flight crew of an aircraft, rather 
than providing that information directly to the cockpit. When 
fractions of a second count, this indirect approach does not 
provide the maximum safety benefit. Second, ASDE-X uses radars 
to survey airport surfaces, and heavy precipitation degrades 
the accuracy of radar surveillance. ASDE-X therefore cannot 
give alerts with a consistent level of reliability. Because of 
these limitations, the Committee views the ASDE-X program as a 
valuable yet incomplete measure for improving runway safety.
    Despite all the attention given to ASDE-X, the Committee 
continues to be disappointed in the FAA's ability to manage the 
program. The FAA has repeatedly assured the Committee that the 
ASDE-X program will be completed on time and on budget, but the 
agency appears disinterested in using generally accepting 
practices for program management. Two years ago, the Office of 
the Inspector General [OIG] issued a management advisory 
recommending that the FAA take immediate action to correct 
prohibited and improper contract administration practices under 
the ASDE-X program. However, the FAA waited over a year before 
taking these corrective actions. In addition, the OIG has 
repeatedly recommended that the FAA establish ``earned value 
management'' mechanisms that would allow the agency to track 
ASDE-X progress and compare it with program costs. The FAA has 
not yet established such a mechanism. Seeing that the FAA 
refuses to use common management practices, the Committee lacks 
confidence in assurances by the agency that ASDE-X will in fact 
be delivered on time and on budget.
    The Committee is also deeply concerned that the FAA has 
chosen to ignore recommendations from the OIG, or to implement 
the recommendations at a very slow pace. The ASDE-X schedule is 
aggressive, and the agency already has adjusted its current 
budget to accommodate cost growth of $94,000,000. The OIG has 
targeted these recommendations to reducing the risk of further 
cost growth or schedule delays, and the Committee urges the FAA 
to take them more seriously.
    The Committee is particularly disturbed that the FAA has 
even gone so far as to withhold from the OIG important 
information relating to the ASDE-X program. OIG repeatedly 
asked for the ASDE-X master schedule, and the FAA refused to 
provide this document until the agency was formally served with 
a citation from the OIG asserting its rights and 
responsibilities under the Inspector General Act. Furthermore, 
the OIG has reported that when it asked for important 
information on the cost of the ASDE-X program, the FAA provided 
either conflicting information or data that the agency claimed 
was already out of date.
    The FAA's reluctance to work openly with the OIG is simply 
not acceptable. It raises serious questions about why the FAA 
would feel it may be better served by withholding information 
from the OIG than to work with the level of transparency 
expected from a Government agency.
    Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $134,545,476 for new and 
replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON 
consolidation projects, an increase of $250,000 from the budget 
request. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate the 
additional funds as presented in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Location                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Airport Tower Construction, MS................        $250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Runway Status Lights.--The Committee recommends $26,960,000 
for runway status lights, an amount equal to the budget request 
and $17,960,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    Runway status lights are located in the center of a runway 
or taxiway, and they illuminate red to alert pilots when that 
area is already in use. These red lights provide clear 
information directly to an aircraft, improving the situational 
awareness of its flight crew.
    Runway incursions continue to be one of the Committee's 
most critical safety concerns for commercial aviation. 
Unfortunately, recent data do not provide a clear picture of 
improvement. Between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the number of 
the most severe runway incursions dropped from 31 to 24 
incidents. However, the total number of runway incursions has 
grown in each of the past four years so that fiscal year 2007 
saw the highest number of incursions in recent history as well 
as the highest rate of incursions per 1 million operations. 
Data for the current fiscal year to date seem to imply that 
this total will grow for yet another year.




    Runway status lights constitute an important part of the 
FAA's efforts to reduce runway incursions because they provide 
instantaneous warnings to the cockpit that vehicles or aircraft 
are on the runway. The lights supplement the information 
provided by air traffic controllers rather than require 
additional communication between the cockpit and the 
controller. The NTSB includes improving runway safety on its 
list of ``most wanted'' safety improvements, and specifically 
calls on the FAA to ``give immediate warnings of probable 
collisions/incursions directly to flight crews in the 
cockpit.''
    The program to develop and install runway status lights is 
still at an early stage of its implementation, and the FAA does 
not expect to begin installation at specific airports until 
fiscal year 2009. The Committee is pleased that the FAA has 
accelerated the program so that its final implementation will 
occur in 2011 instead of 2014. The Committee urges the FAA to 
uphold the promise of this technology by delivering the program 
on time and on budget. The importance of holding to this 
schedule is underlined by the fact that the FAA must coordinate 
its work on runway status lights with its aggressive schedule 
for the ASDE-X program.
    Finally, the Committee notes that other technologies are 
available to improve the situational awareness of the flight 
crew. While supportive of runway status lights, the Committee 
also expects the FAA to continue investigating all technologies 
that hold promise for improving runway safety.
    Weather Camera Program.--The Committee recommends 
$2,000,000 for the Weather Camera Program. This program 
improves safety and efficiency by providing weather visibility 
information in the form of near real-time camera images to 
aviation users in Alaska. These images give pilots important 
information about conditions at their destination airports and 
along their routes of flight. The $2,000,000 provided for 
fiscal year 2009 will pay for the installation of approximately 
10 additional camera sites.
    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].--The 
Committee recommends $12,500,000 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 $2,500,000 more than the budget 
request. These additional resources shall be used to continue 
the program of providing lighting systems at rural airfields 
throughout Alaska.
    Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish.--The Committee 
recommends $7,750,000 for the establishment of instrument 
landing systems. This increase shall be allocated as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Location                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Nevada....................        $250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wide Area Augmentation System.--The Committee recommends 
$92,570,000 for the Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS], which 
is $6,430,000 less than the budget request and $13,330,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    WAAS is a satellite-based technology that supplements the 
Global Positioning System [GPS] in order to improve the 
accuracy and integrity of GPS information. WAAS technology 
allows aircraft to rely on GPS to conduct en route operations 
as well as precision approach operations to qualifying 
airports.
    The FAA budget request includes funding for a wide range of 
activities, including deploying an additional satellite, 
developing new procedures for the use of WAAS in precision 
approaches, and replacing old technology. The Committee 
recommendation includes funding for almost all of these 
activities. However, the Committee recommendation does not 
include the $6,430,000 requested specifically for the FAA to 
conduct outreach efforts and initiate partnerships with 
manufacturers and airports.
    The Committee strongly believes in the value of outreach 
and industry partnerships, but the Committee also believes that 
these activities should be conducted as part of the FAA's 
regular course of doing business. Every time the Committee 
provides funding to further develop a capital program, it does 
so with the expectation that the FAA will work with its 
partners in the aviation community to ensure that the Federal 
investments are made in the most effective and judicious 
manner.

  NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT: SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

    National Airspace System Training--Simulator.--As discussed 
under the Operations account, the Committee recommendation 
includes $24,400,000 for NAS training simulators to help the 
FAA train new air traffic controllers. This funding level is 
$12,400,000 more than the budget request and $9,800,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    Of the total amount of funding added to the FAA budget 
request, $4,000,000 will allow the FAA to purchase two High 
Fidelity Simulation Training systems that reproduce the 
terminal environment. The Committee expects the FAA to deploy 
these systems at the two locations identified as priorities by 
the FAA. The High Fidelity Simulator Training systems use 
advanced technologies in order to provide a significantly more 
realistic training experience. The Committee believes that such 
innovative simulators will improve the quality of training 
provided to new agency hires. Another $8,400,000 in additional 
funding will allow the FAA to purchase 12 simulators to train 
controllers for work in air traffic control towers. The 
Committee expects that the FAA will also place these simulators 
at the locations identified as priorities by the agency.

                 RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $146,828,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     171,028,000
Committee recommendation................................     171,000,000

                          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 $171,000,000 for the FAA's 
research, engineering, and development activities. The 
recommended level of funding is $28,000 less than the budget 
request and $24,172,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2009 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                                     RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
                                             [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2008 enacted    2009 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
    Fire Research and Safety....................................           7,350           6,650           6,650
    Propulsion and Fuel System..................................           4,086           3,669           3,669
    Advance Material/Structural Safety..........................           7,083           2,920           2,920
    Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety...................           3,574           4,838           4,838
    Aging Aircraft..............................................          15,946          14,589          14,589
    Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research...........           2,202             436             436
    System Integration Human Factors............................           9,200           7,465           7,465
    Analysis....................................................           9,517          12,488          12,488
    Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors......          10,000          10,469          10,469
    Aeromedical Research........................................           7,760           8,395           8,395
    Weather Program.............................................          16,888          16,968          16,968
    Unmanned Aircraft System....................................           2,920           1,876           1,876
Improve Efficiency:
    Joint Program and Development Office........................          14,321          14,494          14,466
    Wake Turbulence.............................................          12,813          10,132          10,132
    GPSCivil Requirements.......................................           3,100  ..............  ..............
    NextGen--Air-Ground Integration.............................  ..............           2,554           2,554
    NextGen--Self Separation....................................  ..............           8,025           8,025
    NextGen--Weather Technology.................................  ..............           8,049           8,049
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
    Environment and Energy......................................          15,469          15,608          15,608
    NextGen Environmental Research..............................  ..............          16,050          16,050
Mission Support:
    System Planning and Resource Management.....................           1,184           1,817           1,817
    William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility......           3,415           3,536           3,536
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      RE&D Total................................................         146,828         171,028         171,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Advance Material/Structural Safety

    Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures 
[AMTAS].--The Committee recommends $500,000 for research and 
development of composites materials in transport aircraft 
structures at the Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft 
Structures Center in Seattle, Washington.
    Center for Runway Safety Systems.--The Committee recommends 
$750,000 for the Center for Runway Safety Systems at Kansas 
State University in Manhattan, Kansas to provide for 
examination and feasibility of runway safety systems by 
offering technical engineering and design input, including 
economic and life-cycle-cost analyses.
    National Institute for Aviation Research.--The Committee 
recommends $2,500,000 for the National Institute for Aviation 
Research at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, to 
purchase new equipment, hire technical personnel, and conduct 
research at the Advanced Materials Research Program.
    Center of Excellence RITE.--The Committee encourages the 
retention of RITE as an F&E activity under Aerospace Medicine 
for the identification, evaluation, and potential application 
of sensor, purification and decontamination technologies for 
airliner cabin environments. The Committee notes the utility of 
innovative research beyond the airliner cabin and directs the 
FAA to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than 90 days after passage of this act 
with recommendations on the potential applications of research 
across modes of transportation and other Federal and State 
applications.

                           IMPROVE EFFICIENCY

Joint Program and Development Office [JPDO]

    The Committee recommends $14,466,000 for the Joint Program 
and Development Office, a decrease of $28,000 from the budget 
request and $145,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level. The budget request provides no detail on how the JPDO 
would use the requested lump-sum to accomplish its stated goals 
for fiscal year 2009. The Committee directs the FAA to provide 
greater detail on the programming of its RE&D budget request 
for the JPDO in its fiscal year 2010 budget. The Committee 
further directs the FAA to provide a list of the technical 
assistance contracts for which JPDO RE&D funds will be used in 
fiscal year 2009 to the Committee within 90 days of passage of 
this appropriations act.

                       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, 2008......................   $4,399,000,000    3,514,500,000
Budget estimate, 2009.................    3,600,000,000    2,750,000,000
Committee recommendation..............    3,600,000,000    3,515,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 
2009, which is $765,000,000 more than the budget estimate and 
$500,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 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 $3,600,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. 
The recommended level is equal to above the budget estimate and 
$165,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 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.

                                           AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                 State                          Airport name               Project purpose        recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK....................................  Akutan.....................  For airport construction         $1,250,000
                                                                      of a new parallel runway.
MI....................................  Battle Creek Unlimited.....  For construction of a new         2,000,000
                                                                      parallel runway.
VT....................................  Burlington International...  To reconstruct the taxiway        1,000,000
WI....................................  Chippewa Valley Regional...  For second phase of the           1,000,000
                                                                      Terminal development.
MO....................................  Clinton Memorial...........  Runway 18/36 construction.          500,000
IL....................................  Dekalb Taylor Municipal....  To acquire land for                 300,000
                                                                      expansion.
MS....................................  Golden Triangle Regional...  Extension of runways and          1,500,000
                                                                      taxiways.
MS....................................  Gulfport-Biloxi              Taxiway and runway                2,000,000
                                         International.               construction and
                                                                      rehabilitation.
MS....................................  Jackson-Evers International  Airfield infrastructure           1,500,000
                                                                      rehabilitation and
                                                                      replacements.
MI....................................  Kalamazoo/Battle Creek       For construction of new           1,700,000
                                         International.               terminal building.
KY....................................  Louisville International-    To improve runway safety          1,000,000
                                         Standiford Field.            areas.
AL....................................  Mobile Regional............  Rehabilitation of Runway          2,000,000
                                                                      18/36 and Taxiway ``R''.
NH....................................  Mt. Washington Regional....  To install an instrument          1,000,000
                                                                      landing system.
TN....................................  Nashville International....  Reconstruction of Runway            750,000
                                                                      2L-20R.
IL....................................  Peoria Regional............  To construct a new                1,000,000
                                                                      terminal facility at
                                                                      Peoria Regional.
PA....................................  Philadelphia International.  For runway rehabilitation.        2,500,000
NC....................................  Piedmont Triad               Procurement and                   1,000,000
                                         International.               installation of an
                                                                      instrument landing system.
NC....................................  Rowan County...............  For land acquisition in           2,000,000
                                                                      the existing Runway
                                                                      Protection Zone.
TX....................................  San Marcos Municipal.......  For various improvements..        2,000,000
ND....................................  Sloulin Field International  Rehabilitation and                2,000,000
                                                                      extension of runway.
ND....................................  Grand Forks International..  For construction of a               300,000
                                                                      terminal.
MO....................................  Springfield-Branson          For the design,                   2,750,000
                                         National.                    construction and
                                                                      rehabilitation of various
                                                                      runways and taxiways.
MS....................................  Tunica Municipal...........  Airfield infrastructure             750,000
                                                                      rehabilitation and
                                                                      replacements.
WV....................................  West Virginia Statewide....  Various improvements......        4,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Administrative Expenses.--The Committee recommends 
$87,454,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding 
level is $1,000,232 less than the budget estimate, and 
$6,778,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    Airport Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 
funding level is equal to the budget estimate, and $5,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    Airport Technology.--The Committee recommends $19,348,000 
for airport technology research. This funding level is the same 
as the budget request, and $636,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 level.
    Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP].--
Following reports from the Office of the Inspector General that 
show the SCASDP program provides limited results in improving 
air service to small communities, the Committee recommends no 
funding for the program in fiscal year 2009, consistent with 
the budget request.

                       GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                 (RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, 2008........................................   -$270,500,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     -75,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of contract 
authorization of $75,000,000 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 425 in fiscal year 2009.
    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 prohibits funds in this act to be used for 
buying a store gift card certificate with a Government-issued 
credit card.
    Section 116 prohibits the funds in this act to be used for 
promulgating regulations that allow the Secretary of 
Transportation to auction air slots, impose congestion pricing 
at an airport, exact an air slot from a carrier, charge a fee 
for the right to use a specified portion of airspace, or 
establish policies that would encourage an airport to undertake 
such actions.
    Section 117 prohibits funds limited in this act for the 
Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that 
refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use 
public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting 
outreach on air passenger rights.
    Section 118 requires the FAA Administrator to respond to 
the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, Science and 
Transportation in writing within 60 days of the publication of 
any Government Accountability Office report on airspace 
redesign over the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia region 
on the actions the agency intends to take in order to address 
any concerns or recommendations contained in the GAO report.

                     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 $41,209,970,128 would be provided for the activities of the 
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2009. The 
recommendation is $1,811,241,952 more than the budget request, 
and $230,745,359 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations 
(excluding rescissions):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------     Committee
                                                            2008 enacted      2009 estimate      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation......    $40,216,051,359    $39,398,728,226    $41,199,970,178
Additional bridge obligation limitation................      1,000,000,000  .................  .................
Emergency relief program (Public Law 110-28)...........        195,000,000  .................  .................
Appalachian development highway system.................         15,680,000  .................         10,000,000
Delta regional transportation development..............         14,014,000  .................  .................
Denali access system program...........................  .................  .................          6,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     41,440,745,359     39,398,728,226     41,215,970,178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $377,556,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     394,880,000
Committee recommendation................................     390,000,000

                          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 
$390,000,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This 
limitation is $4,880,000 less than the budget request and 
$12,444,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The 
bill includes language to make $3,824,000 of the limitation on 
administrative expenses available to the Office of Inspector 
General to conduct audits and investigations related to the 
FHWA.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2008........................................ $41,216,051,359
Budget estimate, 2009...................................  39,398,728,226
Committee recommendation................................  41,199,970,178

                          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 2009 Federal-
aid highways obligations to $41,199,970,178, which is 
$1,801,241,952 more than the budget request, and $983,918,819 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level for the regular 
Federal-Aid Highway program.
    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.
    In addition, the bill includes a provision 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 Committee has been disappointed by the tepid leadership 
provided by the administration in finding a solution for the 
Highway Trust Fund. After more than a year of raising the alarm 
about the trust fund without bringing forth any concrete 
solutions, the Department requested special authority to 
bolster the balances of the highway account by transferring 
balances from the transit account. The Department offered 
assurances that those balances would be repaid to the transit 
account, but provided no detail on how or when it would make 
this repayment. In fact, according to analysis provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, the budget request submitted by 
the administration would never allow balances to accumulate in 
the highway account so that the transit account could be 
repaid.
    The Committee's concern over the Highway Trust Fund also 
extends to the transit account. The Committee notes that the 
transit account is also expected to face a solvency crisis of 
its own by fiscal year 2011. The Committee does not believe 
that the proper way to address the pending bankruptcy of the 
highway account is to hasten the bankruptcy of the transit 
account.
    The Committee was pleased to receive written commitments 
last year 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 Committee has been 
working with the Senate Finance Committee in order to bring 
solvency to the Highway Trust Fund. The Committee supported the 
Finance Committee last year when it reported a bill that would 
strengthen the trust fund, and again this year when the Finance 
Committee tried to bring important legislation to the floor 
that included a provision addressing the balances of the trust 
fund. Unfortunately, despite broad bipartisan support for such 
legislation, objections lodged by individual senators have kept 
it from being enacted.
    The Committee is now in the position of recommending 
funding levels for the highway program without any assurances 
that sufficient trust fund balances will be available to 
support the program even at the funding level enacted for 
fiscal year 2008. Absent any other action by Congress that 
would replenish the balances of the Highway Trust Fund, this 
Committee would be required to cut Federal investments in 
highway infrastructure by more than one-third. The table below 
shows the minimum impact that such a cut would have on each 
state's formula grants:

                                FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
 [Fiscal year 2008 and potential fiscal year 2009, assuming no balances are provided for the Highway Trust Fund]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Potential fiscal
                                                          Fiscal year 2008      year 2009          Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Formula Programs

Alabama................................................       $637,171,053       $454,824,733      -$182,346,320
Alaska.................................................        279,027,009        213,461,360        -65,565,649
Arizona................................................        641,147,302        423,184,887       -217,962,415
Arkansas...............................................        396,231,100        286,719,068       -109,512,032
California.............................................      2,927,693,941      2,162,914,748       -764,779,193
Colorado...............................................        431,647,397        305,442,339       -126,205,058
Connecticut............................................        414,852,828        298,155,051       -116,697,777
Delaware...............................................        125,349,454         89,408,810        -35,940,644
District of Columbia...................................        124,219,541         89,055,744        -35,163,797
Florida................................................      1,624,418,469      1,102,615,868       -521,802,601
Georgia................................................      1,175,544,083        808,957,462       -366,586,621
Hawaii.................................................        132,787,891         92,455,082        -40,332,809
Idaho..................................................        236,216,077        168,827,927        -67,388,150
Illinois...............................................      1,088,534,841        783,330,484       -305,204,357
Indiana................................................        824,465,351        581,195,810       -243,269,541
Iowa...................................................        361,451,625        242,857,239       -118,594,386
Kansas.................................................        320,774,514        223,029,846        -97,744,668
Kentucky...............................................        549,734,543        388,477,945       -161,256,598
Louisiana..............................................        485,325,905        351,623,950       -133,701,955
Maine..................................................        138,294,977        101,473,221        -36,821,756
Maryland...............................................        503,509,566        351,819,107       -151,690,459
Massachusetts..........................................        521,001,880        365,897,655       -155,104,225
Michigan...............................................        926,049,768        722,171,474       -203,878,294
Minnesota..............................................        509,180,201        391,306,319       -117,873,882
Mississippi............................................        373,242,956        267,581,968       -105,660,988
Missouri...............................................        736,160,886        530,486,038       -205,674,848
Montana................................................        304,771,339        218,174,703        -86,596,636
Nebraska...............................................        236,117,358        163,744,876        -72,372,482
Nevada.................................................        232,589,219        145,744,407        -86,844,812
New Hampshire..........................................        143,146,635        100,205,953        -42,940,682
New Jersey.............................................        831,717,217        582,846,004       -248,871,213
New Mexico.............................................        299,500,553        217,029,410        -82,471,143
New York...............................................      1,420,182,342        990,367,322       -429,815,020
North Carolina.........................................        901,203,928        651,798,430       -249,405,498
North Dakota...........................................        200,065,774        139,213,152        -60,852,622
Ohio...................................................      1,133,310,969        840,803,111       -292,507,858
Oklahoma...............................................        487,380,217        342,367,319       -145,012,898
Oregon.................................................        359,329,292        255,186,729       -104,142,563
Pennsylvania...........................................      1,412,027,836        992,854,989       -419,172,847
Rhode Island...........................................        153,907,813        109,296,597        -44,611,216
South Carolina.........................................        521,548,415        362,727,197       -158,821,218
South Dakota...........................................        209,747,233        151,170,837        -58,576,396
Tennessee..............................................        693,574,094        488,908,923       -204,665,171
Texas..................................................      2,644,630,565      1,855,034,583       -789,595,982
Utah...................................................        231,513,161        160,420,055        -71,093,106
Vermont................................................        129,246,803         96,554,996        -32,691,807
Virginia...............................................        836,304,372        600,370,965       -235,933,407
Washington.............................................        537,843,953        380,729,769       -157,114,184
West Virginia..........................................        341,068,291        244,799,450        -96,268,841
Wisconsin..............................................        620,444,962        444,299,449       -176,145,513
Wyoming................................................        208,139,995        153,148,013        -54,991,982
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL.........................................     31,573,345,494     22,485,071,374     -9,088,274,120
                                                        ========================================================
Non-Formula Programs...................................      8,642,705,865      4,714,928,626     -3,927,777,239
                                                        ========================================================
      TOTAL............................................     40,216,051,359     27,200,000,000    -13,016,051,359
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee believes that such a severe reduction to the 
highway program would impose unreasonable hardships on state 
budgets and the national economy, and it would threaten the 
safety of our transportation infrastructure.
    Because the Committee is unwilling to put the Federal 
highway program at risk, the bill includes a provision that 
would transfer $8,017,355,427 in balances to the Highway Trust 
Fund. This transfer corresponds to the amount of balances that 
were taken out of the Highway Trust Fund after fiscal year 
1998, a time when the pervading wisdom was that the Highway 
Trust Fund had ``too many'' balances and would not be able to 
spend them all.
    The Committee also recommends providing an obligation 
limitation of $41,199,970,178, the amount authorized by the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the authorization law for 
most surface transportation programs. This authorized level 
does not include a cut of $1,001,241,952 called for by the 
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority [RABA] program. The Committee 
recommends a funding level that is almost equal to the level 
enacted for fiscal year 2008 in order to provide the highway 
program with a measure of stability. The following table shows 
the obligation limitation provided to each state under the 
Committee's recommended funding level.

                                FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
                      [Fiscal year 2008 and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Committee
                                                          Fiscal year 2008    recommendation       Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Formula Programs

Alabama................................................       $637,171,053       $685,543,016       +$48,371,963
Alaska.................................................        279,027,009        311,702,583        +32,675,574
Arizona................................................        641,147,302        636,778,016         -4,369,286
Arkansas...............................................        396,231,100        435,575,249        +39,344,149
California.............................................      2,927,693,941      3,312,604,354       +384,910,413
Colorado...............................................        431,647,397        467,299,869        +35,652,472
Connecticut............................................        414,852,828        449,954,744        +35,101,916
Delaware...............................................        125,349,454        138,617,001        +13,267,547
District of Columbia...................................        124,219,541        140,334,120        +16,114,579
Florida................................................      1,624,418,469      1,642,927,339        +18,508,870
Georgia................................................      1,175,544,083      1,211,169,696        +35,625,613
Hawaii.................................................        132,787,891        143,485,622        +10,697,731
Idaho..................................................        236,216,077        254,021,410        +17,805,333
Illinois...............................................      1,088,534,841      1,196,535,129       +108,000,288
Indiana................................................        824,465,351        871,478,385        +47,013,034
Iowa...................................................        361,451,625        379,857,928        +18,406,303
Kansas.................................................        320,774,514        351,450,628        +30,676,114
Kentucky...............................................        549,734,543        592,705,890        +42,971,347
Louisiana..............................................        485,325,905        538,515,237        +53,189,332
Maine..................................................        138,294,977        159,901,591        +21,606,614
Maryland...............................................        503,509,566        540,404,755        +36,895,189
Massachusetts..........................................        521,001,880        568,853,014        +47,851,134
Michigan...............................................        926,049,768      1,102,209,396       +176,159,628
Minnesota..............................................        509,180,201        595,968,817        +86,788,616
Mississippi............................................        373,242,956        410,678,473        +37,435,517
Missouri...............................................        736,160,886        811,424,802        +75,263,916
Montana................................................        304,771,339        328,045,710        +23,274,371
Nebraska...............................................        236,117,358        255,952,457        +19,835,099
Nevada.................................................        232,589,219        223,557,604         -9,031,615
New Hampshire..........................................        143,146,635        154,484,581        +11,337,946
New Jersey.............................................        831,717,217        890,273,196        +58,555,979
New Mexico.............................................        299,500,553        330,088,742        +30,588,189
New York...............................................      1,420,182,342      1,534,810,766       +114,628,424
North Carolina.........................................        901,203,928        983,778,573        +82,574,645
North Dakota...........................................        200,065,774        216,353,829        +16,288,055
Ohio...................................................      1,133,310,969      1,274,601,049       +141,290,080
Oklahoma...............................................        487,380,217        529,123,770        +41,743,553
Oregon.................................................        359,329,292        396,291,640        +36,962,348
Pennsylvania...........................................      1,412,027,836      1,522,347,095       +110,319,259
Rhode Island...........................................        153,907,813        172,229,673        +18,321,860
South Carolina.........................................        521,548,415        549,574,486        +28,026,071
South Dakota...........................................        209,747,233        231,625,159        +21,877,926
Tennessee..............................................        693,574,094        742,319,544        +48,745,450
Texas..................................................      2,644,630,565      2,796,338,555       +151,707,990
Utah...................................................        231,513,161        247,484,654        +15,971,493
Vermont................................................        129,246,803        152,151,448        +22,904,645
Virginia...............................................        836,304,372        909,749,363        +73,444,991
Washington.............................................        537,843,953        595,434,008        +57,590,055
West Virginia..........................................        341,068,291        373,289,308        +32,221,017
Wisconsin..............................................        620,444,962        668,178,206        +47,733,244
Wyoming................................................        208,139,995        236,277,139        +28,137,144
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL.........................................     31,573,345,494     34,264,357,619     +2,691,012,125
                                                        ========================================================
Non-Formula Programs...................................      8,642,705,865      6,935,612,559     -1,707,093,306
                                                        ========================================================
      TOTAL............................................     40,216,051,359     41,199,970,178       +983,918,819
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bridges.--The Committee remains concerned about the safety 
of our Nation's bridges. Last year, following the tragic 
collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, the Committee provided an additional $1,000,000,000 
for bridge replacement and repair, and directed that this 
funding supplement and not supplant current State plans for 
such activities. FHWA issued guidance on applying for this 
funding in April, and the agency has already begun to provide 
grants and work with States on their applications.
    The Committee's concern over bridge infrastructure also 
extends to the ability of the FHWA to effectively oversee 
bridge safety. The OIG has recommended that FHWA use a more 
risk-based, data-driven approach to its bridge oversight, and 
the FHWA has taken a number of steps to address holes in its 
oversight process. The agency established a working group to 
evaluate alternatives, required its division offices to conduct 
in-depth reviews of bridge load rating and posting practices, 
and started to modify the Bridge Program Manual to provide 
better guidance to the division offices. However, the Committee 
notes that the bridge manual has already been under review for 
a full year. While some of these issues may be complex in 
nature or require a rulemaking process before going forward, 
the Committee urges the FHWA to move forward with this process 
expeditiously. The Committee believes that the FHWA must place 
a high priority on completing its initiatives.
    The Committee will continue to monitor the progress that 
FHWA makes in identifying new approaches to bridge oversight, 
completing its initiatives, and achieving results from its 
efforts. The Committee also directs the FHWA provide semiannual 
updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 
the agency's progress toward improving its oversight of bridge 
safety.

                     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 SUBJECT TO OBLIGATION LIMITATION
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Fiscal year 2009
                                                          Fiscal year 2008   Fiscal year 2009      Committee
                                                              enacted         budget request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Aid Highway Category Subject to Obligation
 Limitation:
    Transportation infrastructure finance and                          254                122                122
     innovation........................................
    Surface transportation program.....................              7,712              7,624              8,002
    National highway system............................              7,323              7,237              7,598
    Interstate maintenance.............................              5,996              5,926              6,219
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation..............              5,624              5,063              5,317
    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement..              2,090              2,067              2,171
    Highway safety improvement.........................              1,278              1,262              1,325
    Equity Bonus.......................................              2,421              2,413              2,533
    Federal lands highways.............................              1,059                985              1,019
    Appalachian development highway system.............                417                424                446
    High priority projects.............................              1,860              2,546              2,544
    Projects of national and regional significance.....                205                252                263
    Research, development, and technology..............                391                396                415
    Administration.....................................                378                395                390
    Other categories of spending.......................              3,942              2,630              2,778
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................             40,950             39,342             41,142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia River Crossing, OR............................       $3,000,000
H-1 Kinau Off Ramp, HI.................................        5,000,000
I-10 Connector Project, Dothan, AL.....................        1,000,000
I-10 Interchange at Pecue Lane, LA.....................          500,000
I-10 Reconstruction from Las Cruces to milepost 165, NM        2,000,000
I-12 Sound Walls, LA...................................          500,000
I-225 and Colfax/17th Place Interchange, CO............        1,000,000
I-25 Reconstruction Glenrock to Casper Hat Six Section,        2,000,000
 WY....................................................
I-25 North from SH 56 to US 34, CO.....................        2,000,000
I-35W Improvement Project, TX..........................        1,000,000
I-35W North Congestion Mitigation & Design, MN.........        1,000,000
I-44 Pavement Improvements from Glenstone Avenue to            1,000,000
 Kansas Expressway, Greene County, MO..................
I-44 Pavement Improvements from US-65 to Glenstone             1,000,000
 Avenue, MO............................................
I-70 Stapleton Interchange, CO.........................        2,000,000
I-70 Viaduct Relignment, Topeka, KS....................        1,000,000
I-84 Caldwell to Nampa Widening, ID....................        1,000,000
I-85 NB Viaduct at SR 400 NB--Exit Lane, GA............          500,000
I-85 Widening, NC......................................        1,000,000
I-94/9th Street Interchange, ND........................        1,000,000
I-95/US 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC........        1,000,000
I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI............        2,000,000
I-95 Toll Facility Rehabilitation and Highway Speed E-         2,000,000
 ZPass Improvements, DE................................
I-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington           2,000,000
 Road, VA..............................................
Improvements on I-90 from the Lawrence County Line to          2,000,000
 Exit 32, SD...........................................
Interstate 29 Utility Reconstruction, IA...............        1,000,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR.......        2,000,000
Lincoln Parish/I-20 Transportation Corridor, LA........          500,000
Third Army Road/Interstate 75 Interchange Construction,          750,000
 GA....................................................
Turnpike Improvement Project: SR1 and I-95, DE.........        2,000,000
US 17 in Onslow County, NC.............................        1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-Mile Road Reconstruction, Wind River Indian                  $500,000
 Reservation, WY........................................
Alaska Trails Initiative, AK............................       2,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD....       3,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Harford County, MD.........       3,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Montgomery County, MD......       3,000,000
B-Reactor Access Road Analysis Project, WA..............         200,000
Cannonball and Fort Yates Streets, ND...................       1,350,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID....................       1,000,000
Cuny Table Road (BIA Route 2), Pine Ridge Indian               1,000,000
 Reservation, SD........................................
Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI...................       1,000,000
FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID..............................         500,000
Flight 93 National Memorial, PA.........................       3,000,000
Grand Teton National Park Pathways System, WY...........       2,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ............................       4,500,000
Improvements to SD 73 from US 18 to Jackson County             1,000,000
 Serving Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservation, SD.........
Montana Secondary 323 from Ekalaka to Alzada, MT........       3,000,000
Powers Boulevard at Peterson AFB, CO....................       2,000,000
Pyramid Lake Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV...............         500,000
Sand Dunes Northern Access Road, CO.....................         500,000
Skokomish Tribe Reservation Road Improvements, WA.......       1,000,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV................       3,000,000
Squaxin Island Access Improvement Project, WA...........       1,000,000
SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway--Las Vegas to Pahrump, NV...       2,750,000
US 491: Navajo 9 to Shiprock, Four-lane upgrade, NM.....       1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $100,000,0000 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.
    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 name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Gustavus Public Dock and Floats, AK.............      $1,000,000
Ferry Service for Route 240 Bridge Improvements, MO.....       1,000,000
Long Island Ferry Dock Construction, Boston, MA.........       1,000,000
Mayport Ferry Rehabilitation, FL........................         500,000
North Carolina Statewide Ferry System, NC...............       2,000,000
Rich Passage Wake Impact Study, WA......................       2,000,000
Vashon Island Passenger Ferry, WA.......................       1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-B Street Corridor Connector Project, WA...............       2,000,000
Avenue of the Arts Revitalization and Streetscaping              500,000
 Project, PA............................................
Boone County Gunpowder Creek Trail System, KY...........         450,000
Capitol Street Renaissance Project, MS..................       3,000,000
Children's Wharf Landing Intermodal Improvements,              1,000,000
 Boston, MA.............................................
City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO...         500,000
City of Haverhill Downtown Streetscape Improvements, MA.         300,000
City of Negaunee, Croix Street Reconstruction;                   500,000
 Completion of Phase I: Negaunee, MI....................
College Avenue Redesign, NJ.............................       1,000,000
Downtown Revitalization: Phase II of Main Street                 500,000
 Revitalization, Las Cruces, NM.........................
East Aztec Arterial Route, NM...........................         500,000
Elkins Railyard Project, WV.............................       1,000,000
Garrison Avenue Streetscaping, AR.......................       1,000,000
Hattiesburgh 4th Street Improvements, MS................       2,000,000
I-80 Intermodal Corridor Study--Oakland, CA to Utah            1,000,000
 Stateline, UT..........................................
Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail               3,000,000
 improvements and enhancements, IL......................
Kanawha Trestle Rail-Trail Project, WV..................       2,000,000
Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND........................         343,750
Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization               1,000,000
 Project, NY............................................
Mexico Technology Park, MO..............................       1,000,000
North Parkway Safety Improvement Project, WA............         500,000
Old Allentown Streetscape Improvements, PA..............         500,000
Potomac Street Improvement, WV..........................       1,500,000
Sidewalk Improvements, Williamstown, VT.................         200,000
University Place Pedestrian Overpass, WA................         500,000
Woodland Trail Project, WA..............................         500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Illinois Pedestrian and Bicycling Road and Trail 
Improvements and Enhancements, Illinois.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the Illinois Department of 
Transportation [IDOT] for various transportation enhancement 
projects throughout the State. The Committee expects IDOT to 
provide funds for projects in the following counties: Adams 
County, Cook County, DuPage County, Macoupin County, Massac 
County, Montgomery County, Sangamon County, St. Clair County, 
and Will County.
    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.
    Delta Region Transportation Development Program.--This 
program encourages multistate transportation planning and 
supports the development of transportation infrastructure in 
the eight States that comprise the region of the Mississippi 
Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
    Within the funding available to the Delta Region 
Transportation Development Program, funds are to be made 
available to the following projects and activities:

            DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byram-Clinton/Norrell Corridor, MS......................      $1,500,000
Downtown Greenwood Connector Route, MS..................       1,500,000
Natchez Riverfront Trails, MS...........................         450,000
Poplar Bluff Bypass, MO.................................       2,000,000
Route 60, MO............................................       1,000,000
Route 61, MO............................................         639,550
Route 84--Interstate 55, MO.............................       1,000,000
Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS.......................       1,000,000
Stoddard County, to make road improvements, MO..........         360,440
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed 
Rail Corridors.--This program provides grants for safety 
improvements at grade crossings between railways and highways 
on designated high speed rail corridors.
    Within the funding available for this program, funds are to 
be made available to the following projects and activities:

  ELIMINATION OF RAIL-HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING HAZARDS IN HIGH-SPEED RAIL
                                CORRIDORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA.............      $1,000,000
Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation, Port of Tacoma, WA.....       1,000,000
Shaw Road Extension Project, City of Puyallup, WA.......       2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2008.................................... $41,955,051,359
Budget estimate, 2009...................................  39,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  40,000,000,000

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $40,000,000,000. The recommended level is $500,000,000 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 $3,150,000,000 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 bill 
includes a provision that provides States with flexibility in 
how this rescission is applied, consistent with the policy the 
Committee followed in prior years.

                 APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $15,680,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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 $10,000,000 for corridor H in West 
Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS]. 
The recommended amount is $5,680,000 less than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level.

                      DENALI ACCESS SYSTEM PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      $6,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Funding for the Denali Access System is authorized under 
section 1960 of SAFETEA-LU. The program provides funds to pay 
for the costs of planning, designing, engineering, and 
constructing road and other surface transportation 
infrastructure to provide essential access routes to native 
villages and rural communities in Alaska.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Denali Access 
System Program. The administration did not request any funding 
for this program for fiscal year 2009.

       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 unobligated balances associated with 
Public Law 102-240.
    Section 123 rescinds unobligated balances associated with 
Public Law 105-178.
    Section 124 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for 
use for administrative expenses.
    Section 125 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for 
use for research activities.
    Section 126 appropriates funds for the projects, programs, 
and activities specified as follows:

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
146th Street Corridor Extension, Boone County, IN.......        $500,000
159th and US 69 Interchange Improvements, Overland Park,       1,000,000
 KS.....................................................
2300 West Upgrade, 1900 South to 2100 North, UT.........       1,000,000
5th and Market Street Transportation Improvements, PA...         500,000
Advanced Bridge Safety Initiative, ME...................         500,000
Anchor Lake Project, MS.................................       1,000,000
Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI.............       1,000,000
Artesia Road Bypass, MS.................................       1,000,000
Barnes Crossing Road/Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge, MS...         500,000
Bayside Promenade, ME...................................         800,000
Bland Street Improvements, Bland, MO....................         300,000
Bonneville/Clark One-Way Couplet, NV....................         500,000
Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Plan, LA...............       1,000,000
Bridge over Brandywine Creek, PA........................         750,000
Campus Loop Road Extension for St. John Fisher College,          500,000
 NY.....................................................
Cesar Chavez Blvd/Calexico-West Port of Entry Congestion       3,000,000
 Improvements, CA.......................................
City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project--           4,000,000
 University Blvd and Greensboro Avenue, AL..............
Cline Avenue Extension, East Chicago, IN................       1,000,000
Clinton Street Bridge Replacement, Fort Wayne, IN.......         500,000
Coalfields Expressway, WV...............................       5,000,000
Construction of Lafayette Interchange, MO...............       1,000,000
Cumberland Parkway/US 41 Expansion, GA..................       1,000,000
Decatur Downtown Streetscape Project, AL................         350,000
Delaware Avenue Bridge, IA..............................         500,000
East Texas Higher Speed Rail Feasibility Study, TX......         300,000
Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway Completion             2,000,000
 Project, KY............................................
El Camino East/West Corridor, Winfield, LA..............         500,000
Establishment of Railroad Quiet Zones in the Town of             500,000
 Hamburg, NY............................................
FM509 Extension, Harlingen, TX..........................         500,000
Fort Drum Connector (I-81 to Fort Drum North Gate), NY..       1,000,000
Freedom Road Transportation Improvement Project, PA.....       1,750,000
Gate and Intersection Improvements at Fort Lee, VA......       1,000,000
Granite Falls Alternate Route, WA.......................       2,500,000
Great Miami Boulevard Extension, OH.....................         500,000
Harden Street Improvements--Phase II, SC................       1,000,000
Hastings Bridge, MN.....................................       2,000,000
Highway 100 Extension from Edgewood Road to Highway 30,        1,000,000
 Cedar Rapids, IA.......................................
Highway 14-Waseca to Owatonna, MN.......................       2,000,000
Highway 75 Revitalization Project, AL...................         250,000
Highway 9 Improvements, MS..............................       3,000,000
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, NJ.....................         500,000
I-10 New Orleans East Upgrades, LA......................         200,000
I-12 Interchange at LA-16, Denham Springs, LA...........         750,000
I-295/76/42 Direct Connection, NJ.......................       3,000,000
I-49 South, LA..........................................       2,000,000
I-5 to Hwy. 99W Connector, OR...........................       3,000,000
I-540 Interchange Improvements, Washington and Benton          2,000,000
 Counties, AR...........................................
I-555 Access Road, Poinsett County, AR..................       2,000,000
I-69, Shreveport, LA....................................       2,000,000
I-69, TN................................................         500,000
I-69, TX................................................         500,000
I-93 Kalispell Bypass, MT...............................       3,000,000
I-95 Interchange at SR 202 (Butler Blvd.), FL...........       1,000,000
Improvements to the Route 60 Bridges over the James            1,000,000
 River, MO..............................................
Improvements to US Route 1 for access to York County             500,000
 Community College, ME..................................
Improvements to US-54, Seward County, KS................       1,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge, DE...........................       2,000,000
Intersection Improvements on US 212 and US 81 and              1,000,000
 Improvements to US 81, SD..............................
Intersection Safety Improvements, Olympia Fields, IL....         500,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR........       3,000,000
Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway        3,000,000
 1, AR..................................................
Isabel Swamp Road, Washington Parish, LA................         450,000
Joplin Downtown Revitalization, MO......................       1,000,000
K-7 Corridor Study from 183rd St to 119th Street in              750,000
 Olathe, KS.............................................
King Coal Highway, WV...................................       5,000,000
LA-1 Goldenmeadow to Port Fourchon, LA..................         650,000
LA 28, Vernon Parish, LA................................       2,000,000
Lake Charles Riverfront Parkway Development Plan, LA....         250,000
Lake Mead Parkway, Phase 2, NV..........................         250,000
Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, NH...............       2,000,000
Longfellow Bridge Approach Gateway, Cambridge, MA.......       1,000,000
Martha/I-76 Connection, OH..............................         500,000
McKinley/Riverside Avenues Safety Improvement Project,         1,000,000
 Muncie, IN.............................................
Melbourne International Access Road, FL.................       1,000,000
Milwaukee Intermodal Station Improvements to Train Shed        1,500,000
 and Platforms, WI......................................
N.A. Sandifer Highway, MS...............................         315,000
New Hampshire Department of Transportation, U.S. Route 4       1,000,000
 Red List Bridge Repair, West Lebanon, NH...............
New York State Route 12.................................         500,000
Niagara Falls International Railway Station/Intermodal           500,000
 Transportation Center, NY..............................
Northside Drive, MS.....................................       2,000,000
Northwest Loop Access Road, Sandoval County, NM.........       1,000,000
Page Extension Phase II, MO.............................       1,000,000
Park Avenue Multi-Use Trail, ME.........................         800,000
Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Development Program, PA..       1,000,000
Peters Road Extension, Plaquemines Parish, LA...........         650,000
Pinon Hills Boulevard East and Animas River Bridge, NM..       1,000,000
Plaza del Sol Project, Village of Angel Fire, NM........         350,000
Port Industrial Road Improvement Project, WA............       4,000,000
Portsmouth Town Center Plan, RI.........................       1,000,000
Reconstruction of Riverside Drive, CT...................       1,000,000
Redesign and Reconstruction of I-235 and Kellogg                 500,000
 Interchange, Wichita, KS...............................
Replacement of US-159 Bridge at Rulo, NE................       1,200,000
ReTrac Project Enhancements, Reno, NV...................         250,000
Rickenbacker Intermodal East-West Connector, OH.........         300,000
Road improvements on Powderhouse Road from SD 42 to            3,000,000
 Madison Street, Sioux Falls, SD........................
Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA..........       1,000,000
Route 1 and Route 34 Connector, CT......................         500,000
Route 150, MO...........................................       1,000,000
Route 5 Improvements in Laclede and Camden Counties, MO.       1,000,000
Salt Fork of the Red River Bridge Martha Crossing, OK...       1,500,000
SE Connector, SE 6th Street to SE 14th Street (US 69),         1,500,000
 Des Moines, IA.........................................
Shiloh Road, MT.........................................       5,000,000
Slide Repair Work along US 60 in Eastern Kanawha County,       5,000,000
 WV.....................................................
South Entrance Interchange at Mississippi State                1,000,000
 University, MS.........................................
Southwest Arterial, Dubuque, IA.........................       1,000,000
St. John Medical Center--Broken Arrow Traffic                    250,000
 Improvement, OK........................................
Starkweather Creek Parkway Bike Path, WI................       1,000,000
State Route 317, between I-75 and Collegedale in               1,000,000
 Hamilton County, TN....................................
Steptoe Street Extension Project, WA....................       2,000,000
TH 610 from US 169 to I-94, Maple Grove, MN.............       1,000,000
TH-13/CR 5 Interchange, MN..............................       1,000,000
Town of Clarkstown, New City Hamlet, NY to Revitalize            500,000
 South Main Street......................................
Town of Lexington United Traffic Plan--Phase I, SC......       1,000,000
Town of Tamworth, Chocorua Village Safety Project, NH...         500,000
Traffic Light--Piedmont Road and Edmond Road, OK........         100,000
Trinity River Vision Bridges, Fort Worth, TX............       1,000,000
US 101 Safety Improvements at Deer Park, WA.............         980,000
US 12 Safety Improvements, WA...........................       3,000,000
US 17 Widening, FL......................................       2,000,000
US 2 Safety Improvements, WA............................       2,000,000
US Highway 30 Improvements, Whiteside County, IL........         500,000
US 61 Fort Madison Bypass Interchange at Highway J40, IA       1,000,000
US Highway 59 Safety Improvements, MN...................       1,000,000
Urban Collector Road along I-10 North, MS...............       2,000,000
US 169 Highway Widening Environmental Assessment, OK....       1,000,000
US Route 64, TN.........................................       1,500,000
US-191, Moab to Crescent Junction, UT...................       2,000,000
US-69 in Bourbon, Crawford, and Cherokee Counties, KS...         750,000
V&T Railway Reconstruction Project, NV..................         500,000
Vermont Route 15 Improvements in Johnson and Essex             3,000,000
 Junction, VT...........................................
West Point Defense Facility Access Improvements, MS.....       1,000,000
West Virginia Route 10, WV..............................       5,000,000
West Virginia Route 9, WV...............................       7,000,000
Western Beltway Transportation Infrastructure Plan, MS..         500,000
Western Kentucky University [WKU], University-Community        1,000,000
 Bikeway Project, KY....................................
Whiterock Sustainable Trail, Guthrie County, IA.........         400,000
Zanesville State Street Bridge Renovation and Repair             500,000
 Project, OH............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 127 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy 
American requirements.
    Section 128 restores to the Highway Trust Fund precisely 
the amount of funds that were taken from it after fiscal year 
1998.
    Section 129 allows funds previously made available in the 
fiscal year 2008 appropriations act to be used for a new 
pedestrian and bicycle crossing in Missoula, Montana.
    Section 130 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in 
Texas, with exceptions.

              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 $541,000,000 for the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This level is 
$11,346,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 
equal to the budget request. It is also consistent with the 
level authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
    The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration [FMCSA] is to safeguard the Nation's highways by 
regulating the motor carrier industry. The agency is 
responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing 
regulations designed to ensure that only qualified drivers and 
safe vehicles are operating on the Nation's highways. 
Unfortunately, FMCSA has shown a pattern of undermining its 
safety mission by proposing weak regulations and failing to 
provide adequate oversight and enforcement of existing 
regulations. FMCSA's performance has been criticized not only 
by the Committee, but by the DOT Inspector General [IG], the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO], the National 
Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], as well as the Courts.
    The rules that FMCSA has proposed fail to achieve maximum 
safety benefits, and in some instances may undermine safety. 
Appropriate hours-of-service standards are important to 
addressing a major factor identified in many crashes-fatigue. 
In addition, clear and consistent regulations are critical to 
the industry, so that they can manage operations in a compliant 
way; FMCSA has not provided that consistency. In 2003, the 
agency published a rule updating hours-of service [HOS] 
regulations. In 2004, in response to a legal challenge of this 
rule, the Court ruled that the agency's rule was ``arbitrary 
and capricious.'' The agency issued another rule in 2005. The 
regulation was again contested, and in July of last year, the 
Court wrote, ``once again-the agency offered no explanation for 
its decision during the rulemaking and failed even to respond 
to the petitioner's argument to its brief.'' As a result, the 
Court vacated two key provisions of the agency's rule-
increasing daily driving limits to 11 hours and permitting an 
off-duty period of 34 hours to restart the weekly on-duty 
limits. The agency must now once again revise its rulemaking to 
comply with the law. The Committee expects that, after having 
the rule struck down twice, the agency will finally issue a 
rule that provides clear and consistent guidance to the 
industry and truly protects the safety of drivers and the 
driving public.
    The DOT IG has also questioned FMCSA's effectiveness in 
achieving compliance in the industry. The IG regularly examines 
the programs and policies of the Department's agencies and, 
where warranted, recommends actions to improve the agency's 
performance. FMCSA currently has 11 open recommendations 
classified as ``key'' by the IG. One of these recommendations 
includes strengthening and clarifying elements of Commercial 
Drivers License [CDL] programs, such as the testing for CDL 
knowledge and qualification and training requirements for CDL 
examiners. This program is critical to ensuring the capability 
of drivers. This recommendation was made in 2002, and remains 
open. The Committee notes that FMCSA is now moving forward with 
a rule addressing its CDL programs. However, the Committee is 
troubled by the agency's slow response to reforming such a 
critical program.
    The GAO also uncovered deficiencies in the FMCSA's drug 
testing of commercial truck drivers. GAO had investigators pose 
as commercial truck drivers, and visit several sites to obtain 
DOT-required drug tests. Of the 24 collection sites visited, 22 
were not in full compliance with protocols covering sample 
collection. In addition, the GAO found that drivers who have 
tested positive for drugs with one company can often gain 
employment with another carrier without positive drug tests 
being identified. GAO recommended the creation of a national 
database of positive and refusal-to-test drug and alcohol test 
results, and that the FMCSA seek the authority to oversee drug 
collection sites.
    The Committee understands that the agency is working 
towards creating a national database, as recommended by GAO. 
The Committee directs the agency to submit a letter report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 
2009, providing a detailed timeline for the implementation of 
such a database. This report should also identify any 
additional resources or authorities that the agency requires to 
improve the drug testing system.
    The agency also lacks a comprehensive system to oversee the 
health of commercial vehicle operators. In 2001, NTSB 
recommended that FMCSA take action to prevent medically 
unqualified drivers from operating commercial vehicles. This 
recommendation was placed on the NTSB's list of ``Most Wanted'' 
recommendations--the recommendations NTSB feels will have the 
greatest impact on safety--in 2003. This recommendation 
resulted from accident investigations that revealed system 
flaws that resulted in medically unqualified drivers being 
issued CDLs. FMCSA recently issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking related to this issue. However, this did not satisfy 
the concerns of the NTSB. As such, the recommendation remains 
classified as ``open--unacceptable'' by the NTSB.
    The Committee is committed to improving the safety of our 
Nation's highways and is greatly concerned with the FMCSA's 
actions, or inaction, related to safety recommendations and 
regulatory development. While the Committee acknowledges that 
some progress was made in reducing the number of large truck 
fatalities in 2006, the agency must continue to improve its 
safety efforts in order to foster an industry-wide commitment 
to safety. The Committee believes that the agency's weak 
regulatory and enforcement efforts undermine its ability to 
promote safety. The health of the motor carrier industry is 
important to our Nation's economy. Americans rely on trucks to 
deliver goods and promote trade. It is critical that the agency 
work to promote commerce and safety. For highway safety is 
important to no one more than the commercial drivers that 
travel the highways every day.
    Industry Compliance.--Last year, the Committee included 
information on inspection results and out-of-service rates as a 
means of evaluating FMCSA's effectiveness in promoting industry 
compliance. While marginal gains were made in 2007 compared to 
2006, the charts show that over two-thirds of inspections 
continue to uncover violations, and one in five trucks or 
drivers inspected have violations so severe that they are 
immediately placed out of service. FMCSA has a great deal of 
work to do to compel industry compliance.


              MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2008........................................    $229,654,000
Budget estimate, 2009 (limitation)......................     234,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     234,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$234,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The Committee 
has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of 
contract authorization. The recommendation is $4,346,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the budget 
request.
    The bill also rescinds $4,887,411 in unobligated balances 
from amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $177,500,000 for operating 
expenses. This level is $5,300,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
    Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010.--As the Committee 
noted last year, the agency is undertaking a comprehensive 
overhaul of all of its systems in order to better target its 
resources on the riskiest carriers. The agency is also seeking 
ways to reach more carriers through its inspection efforts by 
employing interventions that are less resource intensive than a 
full-scale compliance review. The Committee agrees that the 
agency's systems and procedures for conducting oversight need 
to be dramatically improved, and hopes that this initiative 
will improve the agency's performance.
    The agency's CSA2010 has the potential to significantly 
improve FMCSA's operations. In fact, CSA 2010 promises to 
meaningfully address the NTSB recommendation that FMCSA improve 
its operations to prevent unqualified drivers or unfit vehicles 
from operating. As such, this year, the NTSB changed the status 
of this recommendation from ``open unacceptable'' to ``open 
acceptable.'' With so many improvements promised through this 
initiative, it is critical that the agency meet is deadlines 
and that the operational improvements of CSA2010 are delivered 
as promised.
    The Committee is closely monitoring the progress of this 
initiative. The chart below identifies the major milestones 
associated with the development and implementation of CSA2010 
as identified by FMCSA. The initiative has nine elements: 
intervention, safety fitness determination, information 
technology, reauthorization, training, change management, 
implementation and testing, and evaluation. The Committee notes 
that the agency has already completed several tasks including 
the development of the Behavioral Analysis and Safety 
Improvement Categories [BASICs] for carriers and drivers. These 
will be important in identifying and targeting risky carriers 
for intervention. In addition, the agency began to pilot this 
initiative in four different States in order to evaluate the 
effectiveness of new interventions and targeting systems.
    The Committee understands that part of the pilot involves 
using more and different interventions, including off-site 
investigations. While the Committee appreciates the agency's 
effort to develop more progressive interventions that will 
provide the agency with additional oversight tools, the 
Committee is very concerned that the agency will replace the 
comprehensive audits, which are effective, with less intensive 
ones that may be less effective. The Committee will be looking 
at the number of compliance reviews the agency conducts in the 
future, to ensure that they are just being more effectively 
targeted and not being substituted with these less intensive 
interventions.


    Improved Guidance to Enforcement Personnel.--Compliance 
reviews are a critical tool used by the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration to provide oversight of the motor carrier 
industry. Last year, a fatal accident on the Capital Beltway 
(I-495/I-95) involving a commercial truck, uncovered some flaws 
in the compliance review process. Prior to the accident, the 
motor carrier involved had undergone a compliance review by the 
FMCSA, which uncovered few violations. However, in an audit 
that followed the fatal accident, multiple violations were 
found and serious penalties were levied. When questioned about 
this incident at a hearing before the Committee last year, the 
Administrator committed to examining the incident and 
implementing any changes necessary to improve the system.
    The Committee understands that FMCSA did conduct an 
internal audit of its systems and practices. As a result, FMCSA 
updated its policies and trained investigators in the field to 
ensure that its new policies were being implemented. For 
example, FMCSA advised its investigators that for motor 
carriers with 20 drivers, all drivers will be examined, instead 
of using a sample as was previously done. According to data 
provided by the agency, these actions are beginning to yield 
results with a 25 percent increase in Commercial Driver's 
License violations being logged. Additionally, investigators 
were directed to more fully investigate the data on individual 
drivers flagged by the system.
    The Committee appreciates the agency's efforts to update 
its policy and provide the necessary training in the field in 
order to address the inadequacy it uncovered. The Committee 
hopes that this will remind the agency that quickly addressing 
safety shortcomings can deliver important safety benefits.
    Targeting High Risk Carriers.--The Committee remains 
focused on FMCSA's ability to meet its requirement to conduct 
compliance reviews on all motor carriers that are identified as 
high risk. Last year, the Committee provided the agency with 
additional funding to support this effort. The Committee 
understands that these additional resources were used to 
improve the information technology systems that support the 
tracking of high risk carriers, and to conduct additional 
compliance reviews. The Committee also directed the submission 
of quarterly reports on the agency's ability to meet its 
requirement to inspect all high risk carriers. The Committee 
has yet to receive any reports and does not understand why this 
data is not readily available. The Committee believes that this 
data is critical in order for the agency to understand how 
effectively it is meeting its statutory requirement to target 
the riskiest carriers. The Committee has again directed that an 
additional $500,000 of the operations budget be dedicated to 
increasing the number of compliance reviews conducted on high 
risk carriers. The Committee further directs that the agency 
take this reduction from the operations accounts, not including 
personnel and benefits, with at least one-half coming from 
``other services.'' Furthermore, the Committee continues to 
require the agency to submit quarterly reports on its ability 
to meet the requirement to inspect all high risk carriers, and 
has included bill language stipulating that quarterly reports 
must be submitted to Congress on the last day of each fiscal 
quarter. In addition, the Committee has included language that 
reduces the appropriation provided to the agency by $100,000 
for each day a report is late. The Committee further directs 
that if any reduction is necessary, it shall be taken from the 
Office of the Administrator.
    ADA Compliance.--The Committee is again voicing is immense 
frustration at the FMCSA's unwillingness to enforce the 
Department of Transportation's [DOT] own Americans with 
Disabilities Act [ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside 
operators. FMCSA is the sole agency responsible for granting or 
revoking operating authority to curbside operators. Yet FMCSA 
continues to insist that it lacks the authority to revoke or 
deny operating authority based on an operator's inability or 
unwillingness to meet DOT's ADA regulations.
    The Committee is mystified by FMCSA's consistent efforts to 
read this responsibility out of its authorities. When this 
issue was litigated, FMCSA argued that the statute was ``clear 
and unambiguous'' that it did not have the authority to deny or 
revoke operating authority based on a carrier's unwillingness 
or inability to comply with ADA regulations. The Court 
disagreed, and ruled that the text of the statute was 
ambiguous. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to enforce 
ADA regulations, and protect the rights of disabled Americans' 
to access transportation, the agency instead sought to clarify 
again why it could not enforce these regulations.
    The Committee continues to believe that FMCSA has the 
authority, and the responsibility, to enforce of the 
Department's own ADA regulations. However, since FMCSA insists 
on shirking this responsibility, the Committee supports the 
enactment of H.R. 3985, Over-the-Road Bus Transportation 
Accessibility Act of 2007. This bill was approved unanimously 
by the House of Representatives and has been reported favorably 
by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation. The Committee directs the agency to begin 
preparation now for implementation of this authority, so that 
if this bill is enacted, there will be no delay in exercising 
it. The Committee hopes that FMCSA will finally begin to 
exercise its authority to enforce DOT's ADA regulations and 
ensure transportation accessibility for persons with 
disabilities.

                            PROGRAM EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $56,500,000 for FMCSA's program 
expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                            2008 enacted      2009  estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Technology..................................         $8,900,000         $7,724,000         $7,974,000
Information Management.................................         33,829,000         34,096,000         35,096,000
Regulatory Development.................................         10,725,000          9,680,000          9,180,000
Outreach and Education.................................          3,000,000          4,000,000          3,250,000
CMV Operations Grants..................................          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Management.--The success of the agency's 
CSA2010 initiative relies, in large part, on maintaining and 
utilizing high quality data. As the motor carrier industry 
continues to grow, the agency must improve its system 
capabilities in order to track and identify the riskiest 
carriers. FMCSA currently maintains numerous information 
technology [IT] systems. The COMPASS initiative is designed to 
create a new operating system. It is expected to become the 
agency's single source for crucial safety data. Once completed, 
COMPASS will replace 19 systems currently operating at FMCSA.
    The completion of the COMPASS initiative promises to 
deliver safety benefits. It will also result in various legacy 
systems being retired, thereby relieving the agency of the 
costs of maintaining so many different systems. The Committee 
has therefore included an additional $1,000,000 for the 
Information Management program and directs that this funding be 
used solely to enhance the resources budgeted for the COMPASS 
initiative. The Committee also directs FMCSA to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by April 
15, 2009 that describes in detail how COMPASS funding will be 
utilized in fiscal year 2009, and what functions this funding 
will provide to the agency and its users. The report should 
also include a detailed timeline for each enhancement in system 
capability, the retirement of existing systems, and associated 
savings.
    Research and Technology.--The Committee believes that the 
agency needs to be exhibiting greater leadership in testing and 
incorporating advanced technologies into commercial motor 
vehicles in order to reduce large truck accidents and 
fatalities. The budget documents accompanying the President's 
request have provided little detail on what technologies will 
be tested in fiscal year 2009. The Committee appreciates that 
the agency is dedicating resources to CSA2010. However, the 
agency cannot be so focused on this initiative that it misses 
the opportunity to improve safety by investing in advance 
technologies with important safety benefits. The Committee has 
therefore provided an additional $250,000 for the agency to 
increase research into technologies that promise safety 
benefits, such as those related to braking systems and lane 
departure warning systems. The Committee directs FMCSA to 
deliver a report to the Committee by May 1, 2009 that outlines 
how all of its research and technology funding will be 
utilized. Specifically, this report should include the 
technologies that are being researched or tested and the 
potential benefits the agency believes these technologies will 
provide.
    Regulatory Development and Oversight.--The Committee has 
provided a funding level of $9,180,000 for this activity. This 
funding level is $1,545,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level and $500,000 less than the President's request. 
As the Committee has already noted, FMCSA has continually put 
out rules that are struck down by the Courts. Since the agency 
proposes rules that continually fail to meet the intent of 
important safety mandates and instead develops rules with data 
and processes questioned by the Courts, the Committee agrees 
with the Department's decision to cut funding for this 
activity. The Committee does not believe that funding will be 
spent by the agency in a manner that will improve the outcomes 
of the regulatory proposals. In addition the Committee notes 
that the budget includes funding for evaluation of regulations 
proposed by the agency. The Committee believes that the number 
of failed court cases sufficiently explain the effectiveness of 
the agency's regulatory process, and limits the funding for 
these activities to $100,000.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                         (INCLUDING RESCISSION)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008..............       $300,000,000       $300,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009.............        307,000,000        307,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        307,000,000        307,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$307,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 
limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and the 
amount authorized under SAFETEA-LU. The Committee has also 
provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization.
    The Committee recommendation is $7,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommends a 
separate limitation on obligations for each grant program 
funded under this account with the following funding 
allocations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP]......       $209,000,000
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
2009, 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 $4,231,228 in unobligated balances 
from amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

                          MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                              (RESCISSION)

    The bill rescinds $1,390,201 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 $14,903,792 in unobligated balances from 
amounts made available under this heading in prior 
appropriations acts.

 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 135 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 
of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all 
cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-
domiciled commercial carriers.
    Section 136 continues a provision included in fiscal year 
2008 that limits the ability of the Department to use funds to 
establish a cross-border demonstration program with Mexico.
    Section 137 prevents the Department from using any funds to 
establish, implement, continue, promote, or in any way permit a 
cross-border demonstration program with Mexico.

             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 $855,000,000 for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This funding is 
$4,000,000 more than the President's request and $17,428,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    The following table summarizes the Committee 
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                             Program                             --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                   2008 enacted    2009 estimate  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research.........................................    $234,322,000    $227,500,000    $231,500,000
National Driver Register........................................       4,000,000       4,000,000       4,000,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants...................................     599,250,000     619,500,000     619,500,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     837,572,000     851,000,000     855,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Highway fatalities remain the leading cause of death in the 
Nation for almost every age 3 to 34. In 2006, there were 42,642 
motor vehicle fatalities in the United States. With so many 
Americans losing their lives on our Nation's highways, the 
mission and purpose of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration [NHTSA] remains central to the Nation's safety 
agenda.
    The Department of Transportation and NHTSA enjoyed some 
level of progress last year in reducing both the number and 
rate of highway fatalities. However, even as it achieved the 
lowest fatality rate ever recorded, the Department still fell 
short of meeting the fatality goal it had set for itself in 
2006. This underscores the challenges that DOT and NHTSA face 
in meeting its goal of 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle 
miles traveled [VMT] by 2011. As the chart below demonstrates, 
dramatic reductions would have to be achieved consistently over 
the next few years to reach this important goal. 


    After examining the performance goals for the Department 
included in its budget justification, as well as a report the 
Secretary submitted to Congress, the Committee does not believe 
that the Department has the ability to reach its 1.0 fatality 
rate goal by 2011. For example, the Department is lowering its 
fatality rate goal from 1.37 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 
fiscal year 2008 to 1.35 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 
2009. In establishing such a modest goal for next year, the 
Committee cannot understand how the Department expects to reach 
the 1.0 fatality rate goal just 2 years later. The Department 
continues to assert its commitment to achieving this goal by 
2011, but has not yet presented the Committee with a plan that 
demonstrates how this dramatic progress will be achieved.
    Within this goal, the Department has established and set 
goals in four subcategories of highway safety. These four 
subcomponents of the overall fatality rate goal are: passenger 
vehicle occupant deaths; motorcycle rider fatalities; large 
truck and bus fatalities; and non-occupant highway fatalities. 
While the Department's goals suggest steady progress in 
reducing the number of occupant deaths every year, in the case 
of motorcycles, the Department is projecting either an increase 
or no progress for every year through 2013. The Department is 
also expecting little success in reducing the number of non-
occupant fatalities. For example, the Department's goals in 
2009 and 2010 remain unchanged from its goal in 2008; it is not 
until 2011, that the Department's goals anticipate any 
progress.
    The Committee agrees that performance goals should be 
based, in part, on a realistic assessment of progress based on 
data. However, the Committee expects NHTSA to provide the 
leadership necessary to reverse the stagnant or upward trends 
in highway fatalities, such as those seen in the area of 
motorcycle fatalities. Moreover, the Committee expects DOT and 
NHTSA to use all available tools to create innovative solutions 
to the problems the data demonstrate, or seek additional 
authorities that will allow them to have a greater impact on 
highway safety. Instead, the performance goals presented as 
part of the administration's budget suggest that the Department 
has resigned itself to making little progress in the most 
challenging areas of highway safety, or is unwilling or unable 
to establish new policies that will successfully reduce the 
number of highway fatalities.
    The Committee does acknowledge the increased attention that 
the Secretary brought to the issue of highway traffic safety 
this year with the announcement of the Rural Safety Initiative, 
as well as the production and release of a public safety 
announcement on motorcycle safety, based on her own motorcycle 
accident. These efforts target two highway safety issues that 
are critically important to achieving dramatic decreases in 
fatalities. However, the goals established by DOT raise 
questions about how much impact the Department believes these 
initiatives will have.
    The Committee expects DOT to continue to seek innovative 
policies, but hopes that these new approaches will demonstrate 
real reductions in highway fatalities. Therefore, the Committee 
once again directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations 120 days after the 
enactment of this act on the activities and initiatives that 
will enable the Department to achieve its goal of 1 fatality 
per 100 million VMT by 2011. This report should continue to 
include the performance goals established by the Department, 
and should also include more specific, quantifiable goals that 
demonstrate the efforts that NHTSA is undertaking to achieve 
this important goal. This report should also include any 
additional regulatory or legislative changes that would assist 
NHTSA in its efforts. This will be especially important as 
Congress looks to reauthorize safety programs as part of the 
next surface transportation authorization bill.

                        OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $234,322,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     227,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     231,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $231,500,000 for Operations and 
Research. This level is $2,822,000 less than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level and $4,000,000 more than the budget request. 
The funding provided supports the behavioral and vehicle safety 
programs of NHTSA, $126,000,000 is derived from the General 
Fund and $105,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, 
as authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
    The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the 
following program activities in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Performance......................................     $16,968,000
Enforcement.............................................      17,477,000
Highway Safety Programs.................................      43,209,000
Research and Analysis...................................      58,578,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      95,268,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    The Committee recommends $95,268,000 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 again 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 2010 
performance budget including appropriate quantifiable measures 
of success.

                           SAFETY PERFORMANCE

    Fuel Economy.--In December 2007, Congress passed the Energy 
Independence and Security Act [EISA], which requires increased 
fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles for the first 
time in 30 years. Congress also called on NHTSA to expand its 
regulation of vehicles to include non-passenger automobiles, 
work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway 
vehicles. In order to ensure that the agency has sufficient 
funding to meet the critical deadlines set by Congress, the 
Committee has recommended a funding level of $4,180,000 for the 
agency's fuel economy program, which is $2,300,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $300,000 more than the 
President's request. This funding is to be used to implement 
the requirements of the EISA Act including the evaluation of 
fuel economy standards for trucks as well as labeling fuel 
economy information.
    New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee continues to 
support NHTSA's efforts to update and modernize the New Car 
Assessment Program. The Committee has therefore included the 
President's request of $10,393,000 for the NCAP program, which 
will allow NHTSA to test the same number of vehicle models as 
they are testing in the current year while incorporating 
additional tests and technologies into the program.
    In addition, the Committee noted last year that NHTSA had 
identified that parents were experiencing some challenges with 
appropriately using the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children 
[LATCH] installation systems. The Committee is therefore 
pleased that NHTSA took steps to update the child restraint 
system's ease of use ratings related to these systems, and 
hopes NHTSA will continue to work to make these systems more 
effective.

                            SAFETY ASSURANCE

    The Committee includes $17,477,000 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. The recommended level of funding will 
support NHTSA's efforts to enforce CAFE regulations for 
passenger vehicles and light trucks. 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........................................     $11,206,000
Drug Impaired Driving...................................       1,488,000
Pedestrians/Bicycle/Pupil Transportation................       1,453,000
Older Driver Safety.....................................       1,700,000
Motorcycle Safety.......................................         992,000
National Occupant Protection............................      10,282,000
Enforcement and Justice Services........................       3,113,000
Emergency Medical Services..............................       2,144,000
E-911 Implementation....................................       1,250,000
NEMSiS..................................................         850,000
Driver Licensing........................................       1,002,000
Highway Safety Research\1\..............................       7,041,000
Emerging Traffic Safety Issues..........................         588,000
International Programs..................................         100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This amount excludes $4,967,000 from the Highway Traffic Grants
  Administrative Expenses

    Alcohol-related Fatalities.--The latest data from NHTSA, 
based on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS] and the 
National Automotive Sampling System [NASS] show that alcohol-
related fatalities are one of the leading causes of highway 
fatalities. Over 31 percent of all highway fatalities involved 
drivers with alcohol levels with a blood alcohol level of .08 
or above.
    In August 2007 NHTSA held a public meeting on the use of 
ignition interlock systems, which included judges, court 
professionals, safety equipment manufacturers and national 
safety advocates. It is clear from the meeting that alcohol 
ignition interlock systems hold great promise for bringing 
about reductions in alcohol-related fatalities. However, there 
are challenges related to the intrusiveness of the technology 
and their use as a penalty that must be overcome if ignition 
interlock systems are to have maximum impact.
    In an effort to increase the effectiveness and use of 
ignition interlocks, NHTSA is exploring ways to advance 
interlock technologies. It has therefore partnered with leading 
automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for 
Traffic Safety [ACTS] interlock initiative. The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 as requested for this cooperative research 
agreement that seeks to develop alcohol detection technologies 
that are less intrusive than ignition interlocks with the hope 
of greater public acceptance for installation in vehicles. The 
development of advanced alcohol technologies is one of the key 
elements of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which has 
brought together Mother's Against Drunk Driving [MADD], major 
leading auto manufacturers, and responsible distilled spirit 
companies with a goal to eliminate drunk driving.
    In addition to making some improvements to interlock 
technologies, it is also important to expand their use as a 
penalty for drunk drivers. According to NHTSA, currently, 
interlocks are only used on about 20 percent of the driving-
while-intoxicated [DWI] cases for which they are available. In 
an effort to increase their use as part of the prosecutorial 
and judicial process, the Committee has provided $3,113,000 for 
Enforcement and Judicial Services. This level of funding is 
$414,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 
$600,000 more than the budget request. The Committee directs 
that funding over the requested amount be used to increase the 
Traffic Safety Resources Positions and improve the education 
and training for judges around the use of ignition interlocks 
as a penalty for drunk drivers. The Committee further directs 
NHTSA to submit a plan by May 31, 2009 detailing how the 
additional funding provided will be used. The Committee expects 
that these funds will be used in a manner that will increase 
the use of ignition interlocks, through such activities as the 
expansion and improvement of judicial training and outreach.
    Motorcycle Fatalities.--Motorcycle fatalities increased in 
2006 for the ninth consecutive year. There were 4,810 
motorcycle fatalities, and for the first time since 1975, 
motorcycle rider fatalities surpassed the number of pedestrian 
fatalities. Rising motorcycle fatalities have continued to be a 
major impediment to the Department's ability to meet its 1.0 
fatality goal, and the Department must take steps to reverse 
this trend.
    Motorcycle helmets have been proven as an effective way to 
prevent motorcycle fatalities. As Secretary Peters noted in 
testimony before the Committee this year, ``we could have saved 
easily 700 lives last year if all motorcyclists wore helmets.'' 
The Government Accountability Office [GAO] also evaluated the 
impact of universal helmet laws on motorcycle fatalities in a 
report it released in 1991. This report examined twenty studies 
that compared the motorcycle fatality rates under universal 
helmet laws to those without universal helmet laws, either 
before enactment or after repeal. GAO concluded, ``These 
studies consistently showed that fatality rates were lower when 
universal helmet laws were in effect; most rates ranged from 20 
to 40 percent lower.'' However, only 20 States, as well as the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have universal helmet 
laws.
    The Committee believes that States have the right to decide 
their own laws. However, the Committee also believes that the 
Nation's chief transportation official must have the authority 
to advocate on behalf of the enactment of safety laws by the 
States. At present, section 7104 of Public Law 105-178 hinders 
those efforts. Public Law 109-59 loosened those restrictions to 
allow the Secretary to engage in activities with State and 
State legislatures to consider proposals related to safety belt 
use laws. The Committee has included a provision to extend this 
authority to motorcycle helmet laws.
    The Secretary of Transportation must have the ability to 
advocate on behalf of proven methods to reduce highway 
fatalities, including the enactment of universal helmet laws. 
The Secretary agrees, and when asked at a hearing before the 
Committee if she would support an exemption that would allow 
her to advocate for motorcycle helmet laws, she testified 
simply, ``yes, I would.'' The Committee has therefore included 
language that removes, for fiscal year 2009, the restriction on 
the Secretary's ability to go to States and advocate on behalf 
of motorcycle helmet laws.
    Safety Belts.--Data show that seat belts are the most 
effective countermeasure available to passenger vehicle 
passengers to prevent fatalities and serious injuries in 
traffic crashes. Moreover, a recent study from NHTSA points out 
that States with primary enforcement laws have lower fatality 
rates than States that have either secondary laws or no seat 
belt laws. According to the study, the fatality rate per 100 
million VMT for primary enforcement States is 9 percent lower 
than States without primary seat belt laws. This again raises 
the importance of NHTSA exhibiting strong leadership in trying 
to assist States in passing additional primary seat belt laws.
    Last year, the Committee requested that NHTSA submit 
quarterly reports to Congress on its efforts to work toward the 
implementation of primary seat belt laws in all 50 States. To 
date, there are only 25 States as well as the District of 
Columbia and the 4 territories that have primary seat belt 
laws. By NHTSA's own estimates, over 5,400 additional lives 
could have been saved if passengers had been wearing seat 
belts, and the enactment and enforcement of primary seat belts 
are an important part of lowering the number of highway 
fatalities. The Committee expects NHTSA and the Secretary to 
work to advocate for the enactment of primary seat belt laws 
and increased use of seat belt usage. The Committee also 
continues to request quarterly reports on the agency's and the 
Secretary's efforts in this area.
    Teen Drivers.--The Committee strongly believes that NHTSA 
must continue to vigorously pursue strategies to reduce 
impaired and dangerous driving among age groups that represent 
the highest risks. According to NHTSA, teenagers are involved 
in three times as many fatal crashes as all other drivers. 
Recognizing that teenage and young adult drivers are at 
enhanced risk of being involved in an alcohol-related fatal 
crash, the Committee applauds NHTSA's ongoing collaboration 
with Students Against Destructive Decisions [SADD] and other 
national organizations focused on reducing underage drinking 
and promoting positive decisionmaking among young people. The 
Committee encourages NHTSA to continue to seek ways to enlist 
youth in addressing the behaviors that place youth at risk in 
motor vehicles. NHTSA is also encouraged to support additional 
research to prove the impact and effectiveness of peer-to-peer 
youth education and prevention programs.
    National Emergency Medical Services [EMS] Information 
System.--The Committee recommends a funding level of $850,000 
for the implementation of a National Emergency Medical Services 
Information System [NEMSIS] by the National Center for 
Statistics and Analysis [NCSA] and for the continued support of 
the NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center. This level of funding 
is $600,000 more than the budget request and $100,000 more than 
to the level provided in fiscal year 2008. There are currently 
8 States submitting data to the national EMS database with as 
many as 15 more States and territories expected to begin 
submitting data this year. The next steps in NEMSIS development 
will be the full implementation of a national EMS database, 
full operation of a NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center, and 
eventual support of State data collection systems. Data 
provided to the EMS database are important to improving EMS 
training based on the cases EMS personnel are likely to see, as 
well as improving the response planning and resource 
allocation. The Committee believes that a comprehensive EMS 
system is critical to providing prompt, quality care to 
automobile crash victims.

                         RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

    Dynamic Testing Research.--The Committee strongly supports 
the use of dynamic testing to evaluate the performance of 
vehicles involved in crashes under real world conditions. Every 
year, over 10,000 fatalities on our Nation's highways involve 
rollover incidents. Currently, NHTSA does not have a dynamic 
test that can simulate rollover crash conditions. The Committee 
understands that there are concerns that dynamic test crashes 
may not be sufficiently repeatable to yield reliable data. At 
the same time, the development of such a test holds great 
promise in improving standards that will help protect vehicle 
passengers involved in rollover accidents, especially in 
evaluating the performance of restraints, ejection mitigation, 
and roof conditions during rollover situations. The Committee 
believes that NHTSA should evaluate and analyze how such a test 
might be developed or improved to meet its testing needs. The 
Committee has included $1,400,000 more than the budget request 
for safety standards support and directs that $1,000,000 of 
this increase be used to support this effort.
    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 research into the 
possible safety benefits of Lightweight Plastics and Composite 
Intensive Vehicles [PCIV]. 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.
    Improved Data.--The Committee believes that data is 
critical to assisting NHTSA in developing programs and policies 
that will be the most effective in reducing the number of 
highway fatalities. NHTSA relies on the Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System [FARS] as the principal source of nationwide 
data on motor vehicle fatalities. It is critical that these 
systems continue to provide NHTSA with the best available data. 
These data are essential to directing resources in a manner 
that saves the most lives. The Committee has included 
$8,472,000 for FARS for fiscal year 2009 including $1,300,000 
for early FARS. This is $300,000 more than the budget request 
and $50,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2008. 
The Committee expects that the additional resources provided 
will improve the agency's ability to produce better data more 
quickly.
    NHTSA also relies on the National Automotive Sampling 
System [NASS] for in-depth data on crash-related non-fatal 
injuries. These data assist NTHSA in understanding the 
relationship between vehicle crash severity and occupant 
injury. The Committee has included $12,530,000 for NASS in 
fiscal year 2009. This funding level, which is $50,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $300,000 more than 
the President's request, will allow the agency to have a more 
robust data sample.

                        national driver register


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Liquidation    Limitation
                                               of contract        on
                                              authorization  obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........................    $4,000,000    $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009.......................     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 2008 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 2008 enacted level.

                     HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Liquidation of
                                            contract      Limitation on
                                         authorization     obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008..................     $599,250,000     $599,250,000
Budget estimate, 2009.................      619,500,000      619,500,000
Committee recommendation..............      619,500,000      619,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$619,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs 
funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal 
to the budget estimate and $20,250,000 more than fiscal year 
2008 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the 
authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract 
authorization.
    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)...................    $235,000,000
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405)......      25,000,000
Safety Belt Performance Grants (section 406)............     124,500,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements          34,500,000
 Grants (section 408)...................................
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive           139,000,000
 Grants (section 410)...................................
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010)...............       7,000,000
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive           7,000,000
 Grants (section 2011)..................................
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009)......      29,000,000
Administrative Expenses.................................      18,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Performance Measures.--The Committee notes that there have 
been reports by both the Government Accountability Office and 
the DOT Inspector General recommending that NHTSA improve its 
performance measures for State grants. These grant programs 
direct resources to remedies that are vitally important to 
reducing the number of Americans that die on our Nation's 
highways every year. The funding provided allows States to use 
resources to most appropriately meet the needs of their State, 
including reducing alcohol-impaired driving, increasing the use 
of seat belts, and ensuring that children are in booster seats. 
However, over the last several years, NHTSA has not achieved 
the dramatic reductions in the number of fatalities that the 
Department and the Committee would have liked to have seen. The 
Committee believes that it is critical for NHTSA to ensure that 
these grants are not only being spent in an appropriate manner, 
but also that they are achieving the kind of results that are 
necessary to improve the safety of our Nation's highways. The 
Committee expects NHTSA to improve the performance measures, so 
that we can be sure that the funding provided to States is 
having its intended impact. The Committee directs the agency to 
submit a plan for how the agency will improve performance 
measures and the timeline for implementation of these 
performance measures in the States.

      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 $1,314,648 
in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the 
heading ``Operations and Research'' in prior appropriations 
acts.
    Section 142 includes a provision that rescinds $534,000 in 
unobligated balances from amounts made available under the 
heading ``National Driver Register'' in prior appropriations 
acts.
    Section 143 includes a provision that rescinds $50,000,000 
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, 2008....................................    $150,193,499
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     156,745,000
Committee recommendation................................     158,745,000

                          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 $158,745,000 for Safety and 
Operations for fiscal year 2009, which is $2,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $8,551,501 more than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that, 
$12,268,890 remains available until expended.
    Risk Reduction.--In 2005, the FRA published its first 
National Rail Safety Action Plan. This report presented the 
agency's new focus on addressing the highest risk areas for 
railroad accidents-- human behaviors and defective track. In 
addition, the FRA began targeting inspections to those 
locations that data indicated were the most likely to pose a 
risk to safety.
    Two months ago, the FRA completed its update to the action 
plan, launching a new ``FRA Risk Reduction Strategy'' to 
improve rail safety by working more closely with rail 
management and labor. The FRA intends to cooperate with the 
rail industry to analyze safety problems and then address those 
problems with corrective actions before they cause accidents. 
The Committee commends the FRA for further developing its risk-
based approach to safety oversight and for seeking the most 
efficient use of its resources. FRA can inspect less than one 
percent of the railroads' operations each year, and so the 
agency must find innovative ways of improving safety.
    The success of the FRA's new risk reduction strategy will 
rely heavily on voluntary actions taken by the railroads 
themselves. For this reason, the Committee directs the FRA to 
use $1,300,000 of the increase provided to promote industry 
participation in the agency's new strategy. This total increase 
includes $500,000 for an additional site in the Close Call 
Confidential Reporting System [C3RS] Pilot Study initiative. 
This initiative is designed to create a non-punitive 
environment in which information on near accidents can be 
reported and used to identify areas of risk. The total increase 
also includes $800,000 for FRA to contribute to an additional 
pilot project in the Risk Reduction Program [RRP]. This program 
helps carriers identify underlying factors that contribute to 
accidents, address those risks, create measurable goals, and 
establish reporting processes.
    Safety Inspectors.--The Committee notes that the budget 
request submitted by the FRA included funding for four 
additional bridge inspectors and two additional specialists in 
tank car technology. The Committee appreciates the priority 
that the administration has placed on increasing safety-related 
staff for the FRA. The Committee recommendation includes an 
additional $700,000 in order to pay for increased safety 
inspection staff and related travel expenses.

                   RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $35,964,400
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      33,950,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,000,000 
for railroad research and development, which is $50,000 more 
than the budget request and $1,964,400 less than the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety program, Illinois, to          $500,000
 improve rail-grade crossing through education and
 enforcement activities................................
Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia                   250,000
 University, West Virginia, for the development of safe
 construction and maintenance practices that utilize
 advanced blast materials and structural systems.......
Ohio Hub Cleveland-Columbus Rail Corridor, Ohio, for a           500,000
 programmatic Environmental Impact Statement...........
Track Stability Technology, Marshall University, West            500,000
 Virginia, for the development of new track stability
 technologies using the State's rail lines as the test
 bed for calibrations..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................    $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.

       RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

    The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
[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 2009. The Committee rejects proposal 
language from the administration to impose an artificial cap on 
the amount of principal supported through the RRIF program.

              RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $20,145,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 
for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program, which is 
$145,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The 
administration requested no appropriation for this program in 
fiscal year 2009. Under this program, the FRA provides grants 
to States to fund the relocation and improvement of railroad 
lines. In awarding these grants, the FRA takes into 
consideration the effect that the proposed railroad project 
will have on freight and passenger operations, as well as the 
effect it will have on motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and 
safety, community quality of life, and area commerce. Within 
the funding available to the Rail Line Relocation and 
Improvement program, funds are to be made available to the 
following projects and activities:

                          RAIL LINE RELOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLT Overpass over US 63, Boone County, MO.............       $1,000,000
Passenger Rail Corridor CREATE Projects, Chicago, IL...        2,000,000
Phase 3 Rail Rehabilitation in Redwood Falls, MN.......        1,000,000
Short Line Rehabilitating, Salem, NJ...................        1,000,000
Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco, CA.............        2,000,000
West Freight Access Project, Port of Vancouver, WA.....        1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $30,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

    The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for capital 
assistance to States to promote new intercity passenger rail 
service as well as improve existing passenger rail corridors. 
This program was first funded in 2008 at the level of 
$30,000,000. Applications for first round of grants were due to 
the Federal Railroad Administration by June 30, 2009. This 
program shares many of the objectives of the Intercity 
Passenger Rail Grant Program included in the President's budget 
for 2009. 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 continue to 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. 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. Despite 
differences of opinion over the best solutions to this problem, 
there was unanimity among witnesses before the Committee from 
Amtrak, the FRA, and the DOT Inspector General, that capital 
investment involving both public and freight contributions 
would be an important factor in improving on-time performance. 
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].

          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.
    Amtrak Ridership Increases.--The Committee continues to be 
pleased with Amtrak's successful efforts at boosting ridership 
across all segments of its national rail network. As displayed 
below, ridership is expected to increase by almost 4 million 
passengers or 16 percent just between 2006 and the close of the 
current year. Within the last month, surging ridership 
resulting from increased fuel prices has required Amtrak to 
adjust upward its estimated ridership growth in comparison to 
last year from 8.7 percent to 9.6 percent. 


    Notably, the strongest percentage growth is Amtrak 
ridership is not expected to be on the Northeast Corridor but 
over Amtrak's network of State-supported and short distance 
trains around the country. Amtrak's long distance network is 
expected to see ridership growth of more than 300,000 
passengers, or just less than 8 percent, in comparison to last 
year. Northeast Corridor ridership, while increasing each year, 
is actually shrinking as a percentage of all Amtrak riders from 
a high in 2004 of more than 45 percent to an anticipated level 
in 2009 of less than 38 percent. The importance to Amtrak of 
the net revenues derived from Northeast Corridor riders, 
however, cannot be overstated.
    Budget Request.--For fiscal year 2008, the President's 
budget request seeks a total of $800,000,000 in direct support 
for Amtrak, including $275,000,000 in efficiency incentive 
grants and $525,000,000 in capital grants. The amount requested 
is $525,000,000 less than the comparable 2008 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 a hearing on Amtrak's finances held on 
April 3, 2008, witnesses from the OIG testified that they saw 
no way that Amtrak could avoid bankruptcy 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 $1,550,000,000 in 
new appropriations for Amtrak's operating and capital needs. 
The amount provided is $225,000,000 more than the comparable 
level for fiscal year 2008.

    OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $475,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................     550,000,000

    The Committee provides $550,000,000 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 
$275,000,000 more than the President's request which sought 
such operating assistance through an efficiency incentive grant 
program. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than the 
comparable amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
    Amtrak Reform Legislation.--The Senate passed the Passenger 
Rail Investment and Improvement Act--a comprehensive passenger 
rail reauthorization bill--on October 30, 2007 by a vote of 70 
to 22. The House of Representatives passed its version the bill 
on June 11, 2008 by a vote of 311 to 104. Included within those 
bills are numerous reform proposals for Amtrak 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.
    Settlement of Wage Labor Contracts.--The Committee is 
pleased that the lengthy period of stalemate and inaction over 
Amtrak's labor contracts will soon come to close. Following an 
8-year period during which the vast majority of Amtrak's wage 
workforce did not see a meaningful wage increase, Amtrak has 
now reached contract agreements with all of its unions. The 
catalyst in reaching these settlements was the decision of the 
National Mediation Board to release several of Amtrak's unions 
from mediation and the President issuing an Executive Order on 
December 1, 2007 appointing an Emergency Board (PEB No. 242) to 
investigate and report on the long-running dispute. The 
Emergency Board authority called for under section 10 of the 
Railway Labor Act has been used several times in the past to 
help settle rail labor disputes including disputes involving 
Amtrak employees.
    Following the issuance of the report of that Emergency 
Board on December 30, 2007, Amtrak and its unions began 
finalizing contracts consistent with the recommendations of the 
PEB. Contracts have now been ratified by all 19 of Amtrak's 
major unions. Consistent with the recommendations of PEB 242, 
the recently negotiated contracts call for Amtrak's wage 
workers to receive lump sum payments from the Corporation to 
compensate them in part for the wage increases foregone during 
the lengthy period covering fiscal years 2002 through 2007 when 
Amtrak and its workers could not reach a wage settlement. While 
the signed contracts call for a few of Amtrak's unions to 
receive these payments in one lump sum, the majority of 
Amtrak's workers are expected to receive these payments in two 
increments--known as first and second retroactive wage 
payments. Amtrak began making the first retroactive wage 
payment to workers with ratified contracts utilizing revenues 
available to the corporation on May 8, 2008. The second 
retroactive wage payment is due to Amtrak's workers not later 
than 1 year following their receipt of the first payment.
    During its hearing on Amtrak's finances held on April 3, 
2008, the Committee pursued many questions surrounding the 
financing of the second retroactive wage payment. Differing 
views were expressed between witnesses from Amtrak and the DOT 
Office of Inspector General [OIG] as to whether Amtrak would 
need an increased appropriation to accommodate the cost of the 
second lump sum payment in fiscal year 2009. The DOT OIG 
witness testified that Amtrak's revenues and improved budget 
position indicate that the corporation is likely to end fiscal 
year 2008 with a substantial cash balance--now estimated to be 
more than $293,000,000--that should be sufficient to cover the 
cost of the second retroactive wage payment. Amtrak's President 
and Board Chairman contested that assumption, citing the 
uncertainty surrounding the economy and, by extension, its 
potential impact on Amtrak's ridership and revenues. 


    The formal grant request submitted by Amtrak's Board of 
Directors to the Committee acknowledges the corporation's 
financial liability for the second retroactive wage payment but 
refuses to formally seek the funding from Congress. The 
position of the Board was articulated by its Chairman who 
testified to the Committee that ``it's the decision of Congress 
on meeting those requirements.''
    While the Committee believes that the Amtrak Board should 
submit grant requests that accurately reflect all, not just 
some, of the corporation's contract liabilities, the Committee 
has nonetheless decided to meet the requirements of the second 
retroactive wage payment. As such, the bill includes a 
provision that requires the Secretary to withhold from Amtrak 
the sums necessary for the payment of the second retroactive 
wage payment. The Secretary shall transmit those sums to the 
corporation for no purpose other than the payment of the second 
retroactive wage payments and only at such times as the 
payments are due.
    After more than 8 years of increasingly divisive labor-
management relations, the Committee hopes and expects that the 
resolution of this final settlement will signal a period of 
renewed cooperation between Amtrak labor and Amtrak management 
in addressing the many challenges facing the corporation.
    Resources Available for Operations.--The Committee is 
providing $550,000,000 for operating expenses for Amtrak for 
fiscal year 2009. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than 
the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
    The Committee believes that the amount provided will be 
sufficient to cover Amtrak's operating losses in 2009 after 
funds are withheld for the costs associated with the second 
retroactive wage payment that will be financed under this 
appropriation. Amtrak has experienced stronger-than-expected 
ridership growth in the current year that has boosted revenues 
by almost $112,000,000 over the levels initially budgeted by 
Amtrak. Expenses (net of the costs of the initial retroactive 
wage payment) have also grown, however, largely as a result of 
higher-than-budgeted fuel costs. The combined effect of these 
trends indicates that Amtrak is currently operating $91,000,000 
ahead of budget and is on course to end the year with a cash 
balance approaching $300,000,000. The DOT Inspector General has 
written to the Committee to communicate his view that this 
balance by itself should be sufficient to allow Amtrak to 
finance the second retroactive wage in 2009 without any 
increase in its operating subsidy. 


    The Committee recognizes that there is still uncertainty 
that surrounds the sustainability of Amtrak's improved 
financial condition. It can't be estimated at this time whether 
fuel prices will continue to stay at current historic highs or 
grow even further. And while those increased fuel costs have 
been a strong contributor to Amtrak's improved ticket sales, it 
can't be known at this time whether these dramatically higher 
fuel prices might eventually slow the economy to an extent that 
they will negatively impact Amtrak's revenues. The Committee 
has provided a $75,000,000 increase in Amtrak's operating 
subsidy to ensure a greater guarantee of stability for the 
corporation as it progresses through the year while funding the 
second retroactive wage payment. The Committee will continue to 
monitor Amtrak's monthly financial performance reports to 
assess the sustainability of Amtrak's improved performance. The 
Committee further understands that the corporation is currently 
preparing a more detailed and comprehensive budget estimate for 
fiscal year 2009 that will be presented to its Board of 
Directors in July. The Committee looks forward to reviewing 
Amtrak's updated estimates.
    On-time Performance of Amtrak Trains.--The Committee 
continues to be dismayed by the poor on-time performance of 
Amtrak's trains, especially the railroad's State-supported 
routes and long-distance trains that operate outside the 
Northeast Corridor. These trains travel over track owned and 
dispatched by the Nation's freight railroads. Indeed, many of 
these train services were operated by the freight railroads 
themselves until 37 years ago when the Rail Passenger Service 
Act allowed them to unload these money-losing operations onto 
the newly-created National Rail Passenger Service Corporation 
(Amtrak).

          ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORT--MAY 2008 AND YEAR TO DATE
                              [In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year
                 Service                     May 2008        2009 YTD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak System...........................            72.7            72.7
Amtrak Premium..........................            83.8            84.5
    Acela Express.......................            83.8            84.5
    Metroliner..........................  ..............  ..............
Amtrak Corridor.........................            78.0            80.7
    Keystone............................            87.6            87.8
    Regional............................            73.4            77.2
Short Distance..........................            71.7            70.0
    Capitols............................            90.7            86.7
    Carolinian..........................            33.9            44.8
    Cascades............................            73.7            65.8
    Downeaster..........................            80.0            74.0
    Empire Corridor.....................            72.5            65.3
    Heartland Flyer.....................            61.3            51.8
    Hiawatha............................            92.0            86.3
    Hoosier State.......................            61.8            42.3
    Illinois............................            50.8            56.7
    Michigan............................            26.1            29.2
    Missouri............................            28.2            18.2
    Pacific Surfliner...................            73.8            77.6
    Pennsylvanian.......................            95.2            89.8
    Piedmont............................            71.0            78.2
    San Joaquins........................            81.4            85.2
    Vermonter...........................            24.2            33.2
Long Distance...........................            56.4            58.2
    Auto Train..........................            67.7            80.5
    California Zephyr...................            43.5            37.3
    Capitol Limited.....................            34.4            40.2
    Cardinal............................            44.4            38.3
    City of New Orleans.................            58.1            73.8
    Coast Starlight.....................            85.1            69.4
    Crescent............................            56.5            72.1
    Empire Builder......................            75.8            69.9
    Lake Shore Ltd......................            61.8            58.0
    Palmetto............................            56.5            57.2
    Silver Meteor.......................            66.1            68.0
    Silver Star.........................            56.5            45.1
    Southwest Chief.....................            46.8            74.1
    Sunset Limited......................            30.8            22.6
    Texas Eagle.........................            11.3            23.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the heightened attention brought to the poor on-
time performance of Amtrak's off-corridor trains, there has 
only been marginal improvement seen over the last year. 
Nationwide, Amtrak's on-time performance improved from 68.9 
percent in 2007 to 72.7 percent for the year to date. However, 
these figures include the much higher on-time performance rates 
on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services and mask the much 
poorer performance of Amtrak trains off the Corridor. Certain 
Amtrak services--including State-supported services--continue 
to arrive at their destinations on time less than one-third of 
the time. Short distance trains in Vermont, Missouri, and 
Michigan have, for the year to date, experienced on-time 
arrival rates of only 33 percent, 18 percent and 29 percent 
respectively. Long distance services such as the California 
Zephyr, the Capitol Limited, and the Cardinal arrive on time 
less than half the time while the Sunset Limited and the Texas 
Eagle arrive on time less than one-quarter of the time.
    In testimony before the Committee in 2007, the FRA 
Administrator testified that the on-time performance of Amtrak 
trains was ``one of my top priorities outside of safety 
itself.'' In order to monitor the Administrator's progress in 
addressing the problem, the Committee included a requirement in 
the 2008 appropriations act for the Administrator to submit 
quarterly reports detailing his efforts. That law states 
explicitly that these quarterly reports ``shall compare the 
most recent actual on-time performance data to pre-established 
on-time performance goals that the Administrator shall set for 
each rail service, identified by route'' (see sec. 151 of 
division K, Public Law 110-161). To the Committee's dismay, the 
Administrator's first quarterly report was submitted woefully 
late and lacked the route-by-route goal and performance data 
that was required under the law. The Committee expects that 
Administrator's next submission to comply fully with the law. 
Moreover, as the Committee has done previously with reports 
from DOT that are not submitted by their statutory deadline, a 
provision has been added to the bill that reduces the funds 
available to the Office of the Secretary by $100,000 for each 
day that the report is submitted beyond its statutory due date.
    The first quarterly report, as submitted by the 
Administrator, states that ``even without regulatory authority 
over [on-time performance], the FRA can leverage its Federal 
leadership role and its grant-making capabilities to support 
improved reliability of intercity passenger trains over host 
freight railroads.'' Since the Administrator agrees that he has 
some of the tools necessary to seriously address the OTP 
problem, the Committee expects him to use them and show 
measurable results in the near future.
    The Committee commends the Secretary for using a recent 
meeting with the chief executives of the major Class I 
railroads to charge them with identifying one Amtrak route 
operating on their territory and developing an action plan for 
removing delays and improving on-time performance on that 
route. Such plans were expected to be developed in partnership 
with Amtrak and the FRA. To date, the following routes have 
been identified for this initiative:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Railroad                               Route
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation........................  Interstate 95 Corridor
                                             (continued implementation
                                             of the FRA-mandated plan of
                                             2007)
Norfolk Southern..........................  Chicago, IL to Porter, IN,
                                             to Cleveland, OH
BNSF Railway..............................  Chicago, IL to Denver, CO
                                             (California Zephyr)
Canadian National Railway.................  Chicago to Carbondale, IL
Canadian Pacific Railway..................  New York City, NY--Albany,
                                             NY--Montreal, CA
                                             (Adirondack)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee understands that the Union Pacific and Amtrak 
have yet to reach an agreement on the appropriate route or 
segment to be included as part of this initiative.
    The Committee hopes that, in focusing on just one route per 
railroad, the Secretary and the Administrator have not lost 
sight of the need to improve the on-time performance of the 
entire Amtrak network in the near term. The Committee hopes 
that the Secretary's initiative is intended as the precursor to 
a larger systemwide effort and not a short-lived exercise in 
``picking the low hanging fruit.''
    The Committee believes that the administration should view 
an aggressive effort to improve Amtrak's on-time performance as 
wholly consistent with its vision for the future of rail 
passenger service. The administration has always bristled at 
the cost of Amtrak's operating subsidies and requested serious 
cuts or the elimination of such subsidies every year. Just this 
past March, the DOT Inspector General reported that improving 
the on-time performance of Amtrak's trains could have a 
dramatic impact in reducing Amtrak's needs for such operating 
subsidies. According to the IG, improving the performance of 
Amtrak's off-corridor trains to 85 percent on-time in 2006 
would have reduced Amtrak's operating loss by 30 percent or 
more than $135,000,000.
    The administration has also taken the position that 
expanded financial participation by the States must be central 
part of any effort to expand Amtrak's network. Yet, as you 
review the current on-time performance of Amtrak's many trains, 
some of the most unreliable services with the worst on-time 
performance are those that have been jointly funded by the 
States. Such examples include State-supported trains in 
Michigan, Missouri, and Vermont.
    It's hard to fathom how Amtrak can succeed in answering the 
administration's challenge and entice the expanded financial 
participation of the States if new State-supported services are 
likely to be burdened with the same pathetically poor on-time 
performance as the current State-supported services.
    The administration should also rise to the challenge of 
forcefully improving Amtrak's on-time performance because, at 
present, national rail policy on this topic is being made not 
by the Secretary or the Administrator, but rather by railroad 
executives and train dispatchers spread around the country. 
With the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act in October 
1970, the Nation's freight railroads were allowed to pass the 
costs of their money-losing passenger services on to the newly 
created national passenger railroad--Amtrak. However, that law 
also required Amtrak trains operating over freight-owned track 
to be granted ``preference over freight transportation in using 
a rail line, junction, or crossing.'' When the Committee asked 
the FRA Administrator in 2007 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 I railroads.'' More recently, the DOT Inspector General 
conducted an audit of the freight railroads' dispatching 
practices when it comes to granting the statutory preference to 
Amtrak trains. The IG representative testified to the Committee 
that ``by their practices, (the freight railroads) are in fact 
defining Amtrak's preference rights since they control the 
dispatching.''
    The Committee finds the status quo as articulated by the 
Inspector General's office to be unacceptable and believes the 
administration should as well. Surely, the definition of a 
central element of the Rail Passenger Services Act should be 
determined by appropriately elected and appointed officials and 
not by the managers and dispatchers of individual freight 
railroads. These differences in dispatching practices are 
certainly a contributing factor to the differing performance by 
the individual freight railroads in delivering Amtrak trains on 
time; as displayed below:


    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.

    EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORTATION

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2008...................................    $275,000,000
Committee recommendation (rescission)...................     -46,800,000

    The Committee has not included new budget authority for 
efficiency incentive grants to the national railroad passenger 
corporation. The President's budget requested $275,000,000 for 
this purpose in lieu of requesting any funding for Amtrak's 
operating losses. The Committee has continued to meet the 
Amtrak needs through funding made available for operating needs 
of the Operating Grants appropriation.
    The Committee is also recommending of rescission of 
$46,800,000 from funds made available for efficiency incentive 
grants in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Such funds are being 
rescinded to help offset the costs of Amtrak's operations 
appropriation including the costs associated with the second 
retroactive wage payment due to Amtrak's workers in fiscal year 
2009. In testimony before the Committee, Amtrak's Board 
Chairman indicated that these funds would be an appropriate 
offset for these costs. In written communication to the Senate, 
Amtrak's President also signaled that these funds would be 
``extremely helpful'' in assisting the corporation in meeting 
the costs of these payments.

  CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
                              CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $850,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     525,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,000,000,000

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 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 $150,000,000 more than the comparable 2007 
appropriation and $475,000,000 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.
    Fire and Life Safety Improvements.--The Committee has 
provided an increase of $150,000,000 for Amtrak's capital 
needs. While the Committee does not wish to earmark funding for 
specific projects under this appropriation, the Committee notes 
that the grant request submitted by the Amtrak Board envisions 
an increase in spending from the capital grant program for fire 
and life safety improvements along the Northeast Corridor of 
almost $35,000,000. Given the number of Amtrak passengers that 
utilize the Northeast Corridor infrastructure and the critical 
vulnerabilities that must be addressed along the corridor, the 
Committee believes that these improvements should be a very 
high priority for the Amtrak Board as it establishes its 
capital spending plan for fiscal year 2009.
    Coordination With Intercity Passenger Rail Assistance to 
States.--For the second consecutive year, the Committee has 
funded the new Capital Assistance to States program for 
intercity passenger rail services. This new program presents an 
important opportunity for Amtrak to benefit from State and FRA 
expenditures to expand or improve passenger rail service. The 
competitive program funded by the Committee places a priority 
on grant applications that include matching contributions from 
host freight railroads. Matching funds from Amtrak would also 
boost the competitiveness of State applications. In order to 
maximize coordination with the States and the benefits that 
these State expenditures might bring to Amtrak, the Committee 
encourages Amtrak to work with States applicants to coordinate, 
wherever possible, Amtrak's own capital expenditures with those 
of State partners, especially in instances where such 
expenditures hold promise to improve the on-time performance of 
Amtrak's services outside the Northeast Corridor.
    Amtrak Fleet Plan.--The positive net revenues that Amtrak 
derives from its Northeast Corridor operations are as central 
to the corporation's continued solvency as the subsidies 
provided by the Committee. Yet the ``Amfleet'' cars that have 
operated over the corridor are now more than 30 years old and 
will soon require replacement. Demand for expanded Amtrak 
services off of the corridor continues to grow. Yet Amtrak is 
ill-suited to provide that service, even where States are 
willing to subsidize it, because of a desperate shortage of 
available rail cars. While Amtrak has a number of damaged 
railcars available for repair, the corporation must balance the 
costs of such repairs against the capital expenditures 
necessary just to maintain current operations. Amtrak is 
clearly in need of a comprehensive plan for the management, 
maintenance and replacement of its rolling stock. As such, the 
Committee has included a provision in the bill requiring Amtrak 
to submit a comprehensive fleet plan that addresses these 
issues. The fleet plan will be required to be submitted at the 
same time Amtrak submits its comprehensive business plan. 
Current law already requires the business plan to be submitted 
to the Committee not later than 90 days following enactment of 
the annual Appropriations Act.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 150 permanently 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 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or 
spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection 
cars.

                     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 2008 enacted level 
and the administration's request excluding rescissions:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                           Program                            ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted    2009 estimate    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses......................................      $89,300,000      $94,413,000      $93,000,000
Formula and bus grants.......................................    7,767,887,062    8,360,565,000    8,260,565,000
Research and University Research Centers.....................       65,362,900       59,600,000       63,000,000
Capital investment grants....................................    1,569,091,997    1,620,828,893    1,809,250,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    9,491,641,959   10,135,406,893   10,225,815,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $89,300,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      94,413,000
Committee recommendation................................      93,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $93,000,000 for the 
agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended 
level of funding is $1,413,000 less than the budget request and 
$3,700,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. the 
bill limits travel expenses to $1,539,000, and it limits the 
central account to $23,322,000.
    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.
    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 transfer $2,000,000 to the DOT 
Office of Inspector General [OIG] for costs associated with 
audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including 
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This transfer 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 2009.
    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 2011; (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, 2008..................................    $7,767,887,062
Budget estimate, 2009.................................     8,360,565,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,260,565,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 2009 to 
$8,260,565,000. The recommendation is $492,677,938 more than 
the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee also 
recommends $8,670,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract 
authorizations, an amount sufficient to cover outstanding 
obligations from this account.
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels Program..................................        $51,500,000
Urbanized Area Formula\1\............................      4,552,280,553
Over-the-road Bus Program............................          8,800,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities................        133,500,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula\1\.................        538,084,447
Bus and Bus Facility (includes clean fuels)..........        884,000,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization.........................      1,666,500,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute.......................        164,500,000
New Freedom..........................................         92,500,000
National Transit Database............................          3,500,000
Planning Programs....................................        113,500,000
Alternatives Analysis................................         25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands.         26,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 ADMINSITRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2009 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...............................        $20,296,442        $13,191,443         $2,316,728         $2,879,269         $1,580,716        $40,264,597
Alaska................................         25,942,978          6,044,600            298,338            249,848            133,248         32,669,011
Arizona...............................         60,901,486          9,409,106          2,421,844          3,186,127          1,613,609         77,532,172
Arkansas..............................          9,976,987         10,063,051          1,485,312          1,693,187            924,977         24,143,514
California............................        734,520,308         23,149,055         14,201,973         23,567,408         11,695,490        807,134,234
Colorado..............................         59,519,921          8,339,835          1,680,952          2,011,568          1,243,083         72,795,360
Connecticut...........................         74,908,400          2,720,694          1,633,799          1,355,919          1,127,343         81,746,155
Delaware..............................         11,392,583          1,260,415            467,748            317,788            231,164         13,669,698
District of Columbia..................         84,533,477  .................            401,674            456,545            223,556         85,615,252
Florida...............................        214,255,791         13,665,804          9,054,548          9,984,723          6,505,029        253,465,895
Georgia...............................         84,498,944         17,043,811          3,388,163          4,486,717          2,513,664        111,931,299
Hawaii................................         31,536,227          1,977,060            652,887            549,587            354,739         35,070,500
Idaho.................................          7,324,777          5,802,408            622,251            757,544            379,945         14,886,924
Illinois..............................        268,894,909         14,176,509          5,238,179          6,071,487          3,691,937        298,073,021
Indiana...............................         46,239,840         13,565,559          2,750,575          2,774,069          1,862,130         67,192,173
Iowa..................................         17,406,124         10,085,925          1,411,636          1,245,522            757,073         30,906,280
Kansas................................         12,604,053          9,358,468          1,263,995          1,116,971            688,090         25,031,578
Kentucky..............................         22,895,630         12,794,452          2,134,698          2,220,396          1,282,835         41,328,011
Louisiana.............................         37,011,598         10,263,425          2,125,248          3,478,198          1,598,377         54,476,845
Maine.................................          4,390,901          5,450,554            738,482            608,059            403,410         11,591,406
Maryland..............................        116,691,757          5,014,908          2,260,435          2,136,201          1,662,607        127,765,908
Massachusetts.........................        197,198,340          3,494,764          3,005,985          2,799,891          2,108,240        208,607,219
Michigan..............................         84,522,014         17,346,380          4,355,117          4,791,256          3,146,204        114,160,970
Minnesota.............................         54,718,451         12,738,937          1,990,631          1,702,860          1,119,362         72,270,241
Mississippi...........................          6,529,543         11,514,715          1,489,595          1,755,085            814,978         22,103,916
Missouri..............................         46,854,685         13,795,458          2,626,238          2,689,161          1,582,543         67,548,085
Montana...............................          3,416,567          7,487,307            515,089            549,402            253,731         12,222,096
Nebraska..............................         10,110,453          6,541,409            833,830            676,232            371,742         18,533,666
Nevada................................         27,409,647          4,905,231          1,022,392          1,032,410            693,529         35,063,210
New Hampshire.........................          6,194,324          3,525,899            625,384            424,371            387,861         11,157,839
New Jersey............................        322,916,098          3,264,005          3,827,337          3,418,004          2,677,319        336,102,763
New Mexico............................         11,583,543          8,155,173            922,070          1,318,079            567,213         22,546,077
New York..............................        724,884,147         17,530,743          9,093,992         11,751,939          6,640,776        769,901,597
North Carolina........................         50,405,452         21,921,524          3,791,181          4,040,386          2,561,858         82,720,401
North Dakota..........................          3,954,018          3,947,922            404,204            350,871            187,613          8,844,628
Ohio..................................        109,902,727         19,951,877          5,095,271          5,328,123          3,363,088        143,641,086
Oklahoma..............................         17,158,479         11,267,408          1,753,695          1,957,799          1,008,090         33,145,471
Oregon................................         45,889,090          9,755,664          1,624,581          1,767,450            978,972         60,015,757
Pennsylvania..........................        188,087,472         20,183,865          6,017,165          6,048,012          3,790,923        224,127,436
Rhode Island..........................         20,306,948            588,250            633,128            562,119            362,907         22,453,351
South Carolina........................         19,462,121         11,019,109          2,016,570          2,254,389          1,371,615         36,123,805
South Dakota..........................          3,105,634          4,888,347            447,170            376,568            196,839          9,014,558
Tennessee.............................         35,872,944         14,055,492          2,815,688          3,215,451          1,918,824         57,878,398
Texas.................................        249,475,484         33,742,068          8,422,652         14,959,249          6,746,650        313,346,103
Utah..................................         36,539,059          4,779,865            827,533          1,072,095            547,165         43,765,716
Vermont...............................          1,823,452          2,636,628            379,702            225,023            141,005          5,205,810
Virginia..............................         68,709,737         12,445,674          2,970,333          3,074,340          2,032,950         89,233,034
Washington............................        120,370,224          9,532,254          2,524,195          2,985,645          1,925,130        137,337,448
West Virginia.........................          6,585,761          6,714,801          1,116,184          1,275,226            708,504         16,400,476
Wisconsin.............................         50,593,755         13,448,469          2,303,921          2,272,753          1,498,861         70,117,759
Wyoming...............................          1,738,736          4,627,828            322,017            243,656            136,074          7,068,311
America Samoa.........................  .................            226,515             65,166             98,972              8,925            399,578
Guam..................................  .................            612,261            173,448             99,105             26,039            910,853
N. Mariana Islands....................            803,902             34,875             66,533            151,666             29,856          1,086,832
Puerto Rico...........................         47,239,640          1,401,654          2,041,295          7,985,779          2,103,599         60,771,967
Virgin Islands........................            972,234  .................            163,743             99,501             17,993          1,253,471
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal........................      4,521,077,815        511,459,447        132,832,500        164,500,000         92,500,000      5,422,369,762
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight.............................         31,202,738          2,325,000            667,500  .................  .................         34,195,238
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................      4,552,280,553        513,784,447        133,500,000        164,500,000         92,500,000      5,456,565,000
Tribal Transit Program................  .................         15,000,000  .................  .................  .................         15,000,000
RTAP..................................  .................          9,300,000  .................  .................  .................          9,300,000
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total.....................      4,552,280,553        538,084,447        133,500,000        164,500,000         92,500,000      5,480,865,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Springfield Union Station, Massachusetts.--The Committee 
continues to be supportive of the construction of a new, 
affordable facility in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts. 
Considerable funds already appropriated for this project from 
as far back as 2002 remain unobligated, and still other funds 
provided for the project in authorization acts also remain 
unobligated. However, the Committee is encouraged that State 
and local leadership are close to finalizing a new scope and 
design for the facility. The Committee asks that the Federal 
Transit Administration continue to work with State and local 
leaders to develop a reasonable schedule for the new project 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 $10,417,280 for bus and bus facilities 
within the State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2009.
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abilene Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, TX.............        $480,000
Addison County Transit Resources Facilities, Buses, and        1,000,000
 Equipment, VT..........................................
Alabama Senior Transportation Program, AL...............       1,000,000
Albuquerque Transit Facility Rehabilitation, City of             150,000
 Albuquerque, NM........................................
Athens-Clarke County Transit, Bus Procurement, GA.......       1,400,000
Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE.......         500,000
Baldwin County Bus and Bus Facilities Project, AL.......       1,000,000
Ben Franklin Transit Maintenance Facility Construction,        1,350,000
 WA.....................................................
Bloomfield Intermodal Improvements, NJ..................       2,000,000
Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT.........       3,000,000
Capital Metro Bus and Bus Facilities Improvements, TX...         500,000
CATA Bus and Bus Facilities, Lansing, MI................       2,000,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, MN......................       1,000,000
Central City Intermodal Transfer Terminal, NV...........       1,000,000
City of Detroit Fare Collection System, Bus Upgrades, MI       1,000,000
City of Moultrie Intermodal Facility, GA................         500,000
Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................         302,000
Deerfield Valley Transit Association Buses, Facilities,        2,000,000
 and Equipment, VT......................................
Design and Construction of an Intermodal Transportation        1,000,000
 Center for Los Lunas, NM...............................
Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal                250,000
 Facility, Dubuque, IA..................................
East Tennessee Human Resources Agency Wheelchair               1,000,000
 Accessible Vehicles, TN................................
Enumclaw Welcome Center Intermodal Transit Facility, WA.       1,500,000
Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................       1,000,000
Frankfort Transit, KY...................................       1,000,000
Goldsboro Union Depot, NC...............................         500,000
Grant Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA...................         448,000
Greater Minnesota Transit Capital, MN...................       3,000,000
Greater Richmond Transit Company [GRTC] Bus Replacement,       1,000,000
 VA.....................................................
Greensboro Multimodal Facility, NC......................       1,000,000
Harrison County Multi-Modal Facilities, MS..............       3,000,000
HART Bus Rapid Transit Project, FL......................       2,000,000
Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility, OR...............       3,000,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Buses and Bus Facilities, ID....       2,500,000
Intercity Transit Intermodal Facility Project, WA.......       1,850,000
Intermodal Facilities, Salt Lake City, UT...............       5,000,000
JATRAN Light Rail Feasibility Study, MS.................         500,000
Lafayette Hybrid Bus Project, IN........................       2,100,000
Lake Tahoe Bus Facilities, NV...........................         500,000
Lakewood Multi Modal Facility, NJ.......................       1,000,000
Laredo Bus Maintenance Facility and Refueling Depot, TX.       1,000,000
Lufkin VA Clinic Shuttle, TX............................         300,000
LYNX Buses, Orlando, FL.................................       3,000,000
Marshall County Vehicle Replacement for Seniors and for          300,000
 the Mentally Disabled, AL..............................
MARTA Clean Fuel Buses and Facilities, GA...............       1,400,000
Murray-Calloway County Transit Authority Expansion             1,200,000
 Project, KY............................................
ND Statewide Transit, ND................................       2,000,000
Nevada Statewide Bus Facilities.........................         500,000
Oklahoma City Bus Replacement, OK.......................       1,400,000
Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................         480,000
Paducah Area Transit System, KY.........................       2,500,000
Pierce Transit Peninsula Park and Ride, WA..............       1,775,000
Pullman Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.................       1,356,000
Queen Street Station, PA................................       3,000,000
Reno/Sparks Intermodal Transportation Center                     500,000
 developments, NV.......................................
Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI.......       2,000,000
Senior Transportation, RI...............................         200,000
Southside Bus Facility Replacement in Hampton Roads, VA.       2,000,000
St. Louis Metro Bus and Paratransit Rolling Stock              4,000,000
 Project, MO............................................
State of Illinois downstate bus and bus facilities, IL..       5,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MD....................       2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO....................       2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Enhancements, AK.........         600,000
Statewide Bus Replacement, RI...........................       1,000,000
Townsend Great Smoky Mountain Heritage Bus Station, TN..       1,000,000
Transit Authority of Lexington Bus Purchase Project, KY.       3,100,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Buses, KY........       1,500,000
Transit Bus and Bus Replacement, IA.....................       4,000,000
Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility, City of Las       1,000,000
 Cruces, NM.............................................
Treasure Valley Transit Facilities, ID..................         500,000
Twin Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA....................         410,000
University of Alabama Bus and Bus Facility Project, AL..         500,000
Valley Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA..................         388,000
Whatcom County Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA..........       2,000,000
Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI..........       4,000,000
Wonderland Intermodal Transit Improvements, MA..........       1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen MARC Rail Storage Yard, MD.....................        $500,000
Coast Transit Alternatives Analysis, MS.................       1,200,000
MARTA I-20 East Transit Corridor, GA....................         500,000
Northwest New Jersey--Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger         1,000,000
 Rail Project, PA.......................................
Overland Park/Metcalf Transit Study, KS.................         700,000
West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Project, NY......       2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            General fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008......................................   $65,362,900
Budget estimate, 2009.....................................    59,600,000
Committee recommendation..................................    63,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $63,000,000 for research and 
university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 
$3,400,000 more than the budget request, and $2,362,900 less 
than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends funds for the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                     Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Transportation Institute, Missouri, for              $1,000,000
 research on alternative sources of energy to power
 transit vehicles, including hydrogen power and plug-
 in hybrids...........................................
West Virginia University Exhaust Emissions Testing              $500,000
 Initiative, West Virginia, for the evaluation and
 characterization of the exhaust emissions from all
 new transit buses offered for sale to United States
 transit bus operators................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,569,091,997
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,620,828,893
Committee recommendation................................   1,809,250,000

                          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 $1,809,250,000. 
The recommended level is $188,421,107 more than the budget 
request and $240,158,003 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of 
capital investment grant funds in fiscal year 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                     Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, CA.............        $3,000,000
Bellevue-Redmond BRT, WA..............................        20,000,000
Bus Rapid Transit, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, VA......         1,000,000
Bus Rapid Transit--State Avenue Corridor, Wyandotte            1,500,000
 County, KS...........................................
Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, MN.......        20,000,000
Central Link Initial Segment, Seattle, WA.............        28,846,735
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, AZ............        91,800,000
Charlotte Rapid Transit Extension Northeast Corridor,         18,000,000
 NC...................................................
Commuter Rail Improvements, Fitchburg, MA.............        27,000,000
CTA Brown Line, IL (Ravenswood).......................        29,474,404
CTA Circle Line, IL...................................         8,000,000
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Northwest/Southeast Light           87,974,716
 Rail MOS, TX.........................................
Downtown Orlando East-West Circulator System, FL......         8,000,000
Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA......................        30,000,000
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI...        20,000,000
Houston METRO--Advanced Transit Program/METRO                 10,000,000
 Solutions Phase 2, TX................................
Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, NJ.....................         1,103,860
Improvements to the Rosslyn Metro Station, VA.........         2,000,000
I-69 HOV/BRT, MS......................................         7,650,000
Largo Metrorail Extension, Washington, DC.............        34,700,000
Livermore-Amador Bus Rapid Transit, CA................         7,990,000
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY............       197,370,000
Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, CA....        74,600,000
Los Angeles Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure, CA....           332,620
Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd Bus-Only Lane, CA...........        10,952,330
MARC Commuter Rail Improvements and Rolling Stock, MD.        15,000,000
Mason Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit, CO...........        11,182,000
METRA, IL.............................................         6,607,000
Miami-Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, FL.        20,000,000
Mid Jordan Light Rail Extension, UT...................        10,000,000
Mountain Links BRT, AZ................................         6,238,000
Norfolk Light Rail Project, VA........................        57,055,734
North Shore LRT Corridor, PA..........................           670,885
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN...................        71,166,060
Pacific Highway South BRT, WA.........................           281,520
Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, CA............        50,000,000
Pioneer Parkway EmX BRT, Springfield, OR..............           296,000
Portland Streetcar Loop, OR...........................        50,000,000
San Diego Mid-City Rapid, CA..........................        21,650,000
San Francisco Third Street Light Rail Transit Project--        8,000,000
 Central Subway, CA...................................
Second Avenue Subway--Phase I, NY.....................       249,927,000
South Corridor I205/ Portland Mall Light Rail Project,        81,600,000
 OR...................................................
South County Commuter Rail, Wickford Junction Station,         1,345,500
 RI...................................................
South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2 Project, CA.........         7,000,000
Southeast Corridor LRT, CO............................         1,031,210
Stamford Urban Transitway, CT.........................         5,000,000
Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, NJ.....................        75,000,000
Troost Corridor BRT, Kansas City, MO..................           125,200
University Link LRT Extension, WA.....................       100,000,000
VRE Rolling Stock, VA.................................         5,000,000
Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT......        81,600,000
West Corridor Light Rail, CO..........................        70,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 authority previously made available for 
programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338 from the obligation 
limitations in this act.
    Section 161 allows funds under this act, Federal Transit 
Administration, capital investment grants not obligated by 
September 30, 2011 to be made available for other projects 
under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 
2008, that remain available for expenditure to be transferred 
to the most recent appropriation heading.
    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.
    Section 165 prohibits the Federal Transit Administration 
from issuing a final rule under section 5309 of title 49, 
United States Code, but allows the agency to continue to review 
comments on the rule.
    Section 166 rescinds funds from the discretionary bus 
program.
    Section 167 allows funds made available for Alaska or 
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used to 
construct new vessels and facilities, or to improve existing 
vessels and facilities, and provides that funding may be used 
by the city and county of Honolulu to operate a passenger ferry 
boat service demonstration project.
    Section 168 extends the availability of funds previously 
provided for specific transit projects.
    Section 169 corrects the category of funding available for 
the Charlotte Rapid Transit Extension--Northeast Corridor Light 
Rail Project, North Carolina.

             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, 2008....................................     $17,392,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      31,842,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,000,000

                          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 $27,000,000 for the 
operations, maintenance, and asset renewal of the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway. This amount is $9,608,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 level and $4,842,000 less than the budget request.
    The recommended level fully funds the Agency's request for 
operations and routine maintenance at $16,207,000, and provides 
an additional $10,793,000 to begin the Agency's proposed Asset 
Renewal Program. This amount is $4,842,000 less than the 
Agency's request. The Committee is pleased to recommend this 
amount for the modernization of the Seaway despite the shortage 
of funds available for new initiatives in fiscal year 2009. The 
Seaway will celebrate its 50th year of operation in 2009, which 
is roughly equal to the design life of its infrastructure 
components. The Asset Renewal Program is a 10-year capital 
investment plan to refresh and modernize the SLSDC's decaying 
bridge, tunnel, channel, and lock facilities, machinery, and 
other equipment without widening or deepening the Seaway. The 
SLSDC has a history of financial responsibility, and the 
Committee expects that this program will adhere to its schedule 
and budgetary goals. Given that the Committee is unable to 
fully fund the request for fiscal year 2009, it directs the 
SLSDC to submit within 90 days following passage of this 
appropriations act a revised schedule and cost estimate for the 
Asset Renewal Program through its completion.

                        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, 2008....................................    $156,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     174,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     174,000,000

                          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 $174,000,000 
for the Maritime Security Program. This amount is $18,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the 
budget request. This level is consistent with the program's 
authorized level.

                        OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $121,992,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     117,848,000
Committee recommendation................................     123,560,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$123,560,000 for Operations and Training at the Maritime 
Administration for fiscal year 2009. This amount is $1,568,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $5,712,000 
more than the budget request. Funding for the subaccounts 
within the ``operations and training'' account are provided as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 2009      Committee
                                         request         recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
     Salary and Benefits..........        $26,794,000  .................
    Academy Operations............         26,414,000  .................
    Midshipmen Program............  .................  .................
    Instructional Program.........  .................  .................
    Program, Direction and Admin..  .................  .................
    Maintenance, Repair and         .................  .................
     Operations...................
    Capital Improvements..........          8,150,000  .................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, USMMA.............         61,358,000     \1\$61,358,000
                                   =====================================
State Maritime Schools:
    Direct Schoolship Payments....          1,881,000          3,000,000
    Student Incentive Payments....            800,000          1,200,000
    Schoolship Maint. & Repair....          8,306,000         10,500,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, State Maritime             10,987,000         14,700,000
       Schools....................
                                   =====================================
MARAD Operations:
    Ports & MTS Improvement.......          3,743,000          5,743,000
    Capital Construction Fund                 618,000            618,000
     Management...................
    International Activities......            866,000            866,000
    Deepwater Port Licensing......          1,226,000          1,226,000
    Cargo Preference Management...          3,890,000          3,890,000
    Mobile Source Emissions.......            944,000            944,000
    MSP Administration............            700,000            700,000
    VISA/Vessel Transfer..........          2,169,000          2,169,000
    Mariner Training & Education              921,000            921,000
     Management...................
    Strategic Ports/National                1,335,000          1,335,000
     Security Planning............
    War Risk Insurance............            908,000            908,000
    Organizational Excellence.....          1,480,000          1,480,000
    Administrative Support........         26,702,000         26,702,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Subtotal, MARAD Operations..         45,502,000         47,502,000
                                   =====================================
      Total MARAD Operations and          117,847,000        123,560,000
       Training...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Funding for the USMMA is provided to the Secretary of Transportation.

    Earlier this year, the Committee was informed by the 
Department of Transportation and the Maritime Administration 
[MARAD] that for many years, officials at the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy may have been involved in the improper 
and illegal use of appropriated funds. The suggested level of 
impropriety is startling.
    The list of potential violations identified in an internal 
review of the Academy ordered by the Department of 
Transportation's Deputy Secretary includes: obligating funding 
in excess of the amount appropriated for salaries and benefits 
at the Academy; bypassing the civil service system by employing 
staff through the Academy's Non-Appropriated Fund 
Instrumentalities [NAFIs] to conduct official Academy business; 
bypassing competition requirements by entering into invalid 
reimbursable agreements in order to transmit revenue to one of 
the Academy's NAFIs--the Global Maritime and Transportation 
School [GMATS]; circumventing Federal procurement regulations; 
and, perhaps most disturbingly, siphoning funds away from the 
direct appropriation for the Academy's instructional program 
for other Academy functions.
    The level of disregard that Academy officials appear to 
have shown to appropriate financial practices, Government 
regulations and statutory limitations is intolerable. These 
actions are likely to result in the reporting of several 
violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act. Moreover, the idea that 
so many questionable and potentially illegal actions took place 
under the supervision of MARAD leadership suggestions either 
gross negligence in the agency's oversight responsibility, or 
worse, complicity. The Committee is also greatly disturbed that 
some of the actions by the Academy's officials appear to have 
taken funding away from the educational programs for the 
Academy's students.
    In order to better assess the financial operations at the 
Academy, ascertain how funding is being used by Academy 
officials, and examine how these actions may have been allowed 
to occur, the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate 
subcommittees has asked the Government Accountability Office 
[GAO] to conduct a thorough audit of the Academy. This audit is 
essential to ensuring that the Academy's operations are once 
again on a sound financial and legal footing.
    GAO is initiating this audit work at the same time that the 
Committee is considering the Academy's budget request for 
fiscal year 2009. The formal budget request for the Academy, as 
submitted by the President deviates from prior years in that 
several program activities are combined into one activity 
called ``Academy Operations''. This new unified account is 
expected to subsume the following funding activities for which 
the Committee has customarily set annual funding levels: the 
midshipmen program; the instructional program; program 
direction and administration; and maintenance, repair and 
operations. The Committee does not feel that it is responsible 
to provide the Academy with greater flexibility at a time when 
it is being accused of mismanaging its finances and ignoring 
congressional direction.
    The Committee is deeply committed to the mission of the 
Academy and to ensuring that its midshipmen receive first-rate 
training and education. The Committee hopes that the GAO's 
audit will provide a verifiable and accurate accounting of how 
the funding at the Academy is aligned between budget accounts 
and program activities. However, absent the input of GAO based 
on its audit, the Committee cannot provide funding to the 
Academy as requested.
    Therefore, in the interim, in order to ensure that the 
education of the midshipmen is not compromised, and that fiscal 
integrity and legality are restored, the Committee has provided 
funding solely to the Secretary of Transportation to support 
the programs, operations, and capital needs of the Academy. The 
Committee has stipulated that 80 percent of the funding can be 
obligated only after the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Maritime Administration, submits a plan detailing how funding 
will be spent, which is approved by the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. Language is also included 
prohibiting the Superintendent, Vice Superintendent, and Chief 
Financial Officer of the Academy from having any budget control 
over Academy funding.
    Student State Maritime Schools.--The Committee has provided 
$14,700,000 for State Maritime Schools. The level provided is 
$3,713,000 more than the requested level and $1,519,000 more 
than the enacted fiscal year 2008 level. Within the amount 
provided, the Committee has provided an increase to the direct 
schoolship payments in order to help offset high fuel costs 
associated with the training ships at the State academies.
    The Committee has also provided an increase for the student 
incentive payment program. The President requested, and the 
Committee has included, language authorizing increased payments 
for students under this program. The Committee therefore wanted 
to provide sufficient resources to meet growing demand.
    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 $2,000,000 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.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      18,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          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 $15,000,000 
for the Maritime Administration's Ship Disposal program. This 
level of funding is $2,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level and $3,000,000 less than the President's request. 
The Committee strongly supports the Maritime Administration's 
efforts to dispose of all obsolete vessels that it has in its 
fleet. However, the program continues to have a significant 
amount of carryover funding. This is due, in part, to the fact 
that ship disposal activities are currently suspended in the 
State of California due to conflicting environmental mandates 
and regulatory constraints. In addition, the increased price of 
steel has reduced the cost-per-ton of disposing of ships in the 
fleet. Therefore, the Committee believes that MARAD can 
continue to operate the program at this lower level of funding.

                     ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is recommending an appropriation of 
$20,000,000 for assistance to small shipyards and maritime 
communities. This level of funding is $10,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20,000,000 more than the 
President's budget request. Last year was the first time that 
this program was funded since its authorization in 2006. The 
importance of this program to maritime communities was 
demonstrated by the overwhelming demand for the funding 
provided. MARAD received over 50 applications totaling over 
$122,000,000. Therefore the Committee has continued to provide 
resources to support this program, and believes that it is an 
important tool to assist maritime communities and domestic 
shipyards in their ability to compete for both domestic and 
international commercial ship construction contracts.

              MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $8,408,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       3,531,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,531,000

                          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 
$13,531,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. 
Of the amount provided, $3,531,000 is for administrative 
expenses necessary to carry out the program. This level of 
funding is $5,123,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level and $10,000,000 more than the President's request. The 
loan guarantee amount of $10,000,000 will provide for a total 
loan volume of up to $225,000,000. The affordable financing 
opportunities that these loans allow are critical to ensuring 
that small and medium shipowners can build ships in the United 
States. The Committee expects that MARAD will move quickly to 
approve the loan guarantees, which are critical to our domestic 
shipbuilding industry.

                           SHIP CONSTRUCTION

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     -$6,673,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      -1,382,000

                          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 175 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 176 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.
    Section 177 increases the authorized amount for student 
incentive payments available to students attending the State 
maritime academies from $4,000 to $8,000 per student, and 
allows this assistance to be used for tuition.

         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.

                               OPERATIONS

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $18,130,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      18,130,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,130,000

                          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 $19,130,000 for this account, of 
which $639,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 
This funding is $1,000,000 more than both the budget request 
and the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee has 
provided $1,000,000 over the budget request and directs that 
this funding be transferred to the Office of Pipeline Safety 
for Information Grants to Communities.

                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $28,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,000,000

                          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 $28,000,000 for hazardous 
materials safety, of which $1,802,000 shall remain available 
until September 30, 2010. These funds are the same as the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    Hazardous Materials Intermodal Portal.--The Committee has 
once again included the requested funding level of $1,127,000 
for the Hazardous Materials Intermodal Portal within the 
Hazardous Materials budget. The Committee supports the goal of 
this portal to allow hazardous materials data to be accessed 
by, and shared across, Federal agencies and regulators. It is 
an important tool that will enable the agency to ensure that it 
has the most accurate and up-to-date information in order to 
better track and target its enforcement efforts. The Committee 
hopes that the agency will ensure that other departments and 
agencies that will benefit from this system will provide the 
PHMSA with resources to assist in the system's development and 
implementation.

                            PIPELINE SAFETY

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $79,828,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      93,291,000
Committee recommendation................................      93,291,000

                          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 $93,291,000 
for the Office of Pipeline Safety. This amount is $13,463,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the 
budget request. Of the funding provided, $18,810,000 shall be 
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $74,481,000 
shall be from the Pipeline Safety Fund.
    There are over 2,300,000 miles of pipelines in the United 
States carrying natural gas and hazardous liquids. These 
pipelines are in every community in our Nation, and the 
consequences of not properly operating or maintaining them can 
be dire, resulting in serious injury or death. In 2007, these 
incidents included: two fatalities and seven injuries resulting 
from a propane pipeline explosion in Clarke County, 
Mississippi; two fatalities when a crude oil spill ignited in 
Clearbrook, Minnesota; and one fatality and one injury 
resulting from a pipeline rupture in Delhi, Louisiana.
    As the chart below displays, the number of pipeline 
incidents increased in 2007. PHMSA must remain vigilant in its 
effort to conduct inspections on our Nation's pipelines and 
ensure compliance with all Federal regulation. The budget for 
the Office of Pipeline Safety is increased this year and the 
Committee expects that these resources will be directed in a 
manner to reduce the number of serious pipeline incidents. 


    Inspector and Enforcement Staffing.--In fiscal year 2008, 
the Committee provided the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration with funding for 15 new pipeline 
inspector and enforcement staff. Increasing the inspector 
workforce is critical to meeting the new responsibilities the 
agency was given in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 
Enforcement and Safety [PIPES] Act of 2006, and to ensuring the 
safety of pipelines in communities across the country.
    The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to 
boost the inspector and enforcement workforce and has included 
funding for eight additional inspection and enforcement 
positions in fiscal year 2009, consistent with the President's 
request. The Committee also directs PHMSA to provide quarterly 
reports on pipeline inspector and enforcement staffing levels 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, so the 
Committee can be assured that the agency is moving 
expeditiously to fill and retain these critical positions.
    Information Grants to Communities.--The Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2002, authorized grants to communities or 
non-profit groups for technical assistance, including 
engineering and other scientific analysis of pipeline safety. 
The program's authorization was extended in the PIPES Act of 
2006 with additional requirements that PHMSA provide at least 
three demonstration grants, and establish procedures and 
criteria for grants. The Committee understands that the agency 
has now established competitive procedures for awarding grants 
and is near completion on grant selection criteria.
    The agency was also limited by language that prohibits user 
fees from being used to fund these grants. Since the Office of 
Pipeline Safety is funded solely by user fees, resources have 
not been available for these grants. The Committee believes 
that these grants can assist communities in improving pipeline 
safety and preventing future pipeline incidents. Therefore, the 
Committee has included an appropriation from the general fund 
of $1,000,000 within the agency's operations account, to be 
transferred to the Office of Pipeline Safety, for the purpose 
of making grants under this program. The Committee also 
requires that grants be awarded no later than 120 days after 
the enactment of this act.
    Grants to States.--The Committee has included $34,297,000 
for grants to States. These activities include: grants to 
support States' regulation of pipelines; one-call grants; and 
State damage prevention grants. The Committee believes that the 
States' efforts to assist in inspecting and regulating 
pipelines are critical to ensuring the safety of the Nation's 
pipelines. The increase of $11,739,000 in funding for State 
pipeline safety grants will help States meet the new mandates 
required under the PIPES Act, and will result in additional 
inspection and enforcement efforts by the States.

                     EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $28,506,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      28,506,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,506,000

                          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 
supports 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, 2008....................................     $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      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 Technology Administration for 
fiscal year 2009. The amount provided is equal to the fiscal 
year 2008 level and equal to the budget request.
    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]................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research, Development, and Technology Coordination.--The 
Committee recommends $536,000 for Research, Development, and 
Technology Coordination, equal to budget request and the fiscal 
year 2008 enacted level. RITA must ensure that federally funded 
transportation research grants are made for projects that 
produce new and novel technologies and practices. After 
publication of the GAO's report on Transportation Research, 
RITA committed in its Strategic Plan to carefully assess and 
coordinate the Department's research programs. RITA has faced 
serious challenges in achieving this goal. This is due in part 
to longstanding contracts for duplicative research projects at 
institutions across the country. The Committee encourages the 
Administrator to continue putting pressure on RITA's existing 
partners to put their research funding to its most productive 
use, and to differentiate their work from other efforts already 
underway. Organizational structures within the Department of 
Transportation also undermine RITA's ability to set a focused 
research agenda.
    Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System 
[NDGPS].--The Committee directs that not less than $5,000,000 
shall be made available for the Nationwide Differential Global 
Positioning System, an increase of $400,000 from the budget 
request and equal to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The 
amount requested for NDGPS was reduced from the amount provided 
for fiscal year 2008, and the funds reallocated to a new budget 
item. However, the Committee has learned that the NDGPS request 
is expected to fall short of what will be needed to support the 
system through fiscal year 2009, and that significant 
recapitalization of the system will be necessary in the next 
few years. NDGPS has a wide variety of applications and users, 
and the service must not be allowed to deteriorate. The 
Committee further directs the Secretary to submit a 
recapitalization plan for NDGPS, including anticipated costs 
and completion dates, to the Committee within 90 days following 
passage of this appropriations act.

                  Bureau of Transportation Statistics


                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2008.........................     $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      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 
2009 in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing 
that occurred previously within this agency.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $66,400,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      70,468,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,200,000

                          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 $72,200,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is 
$5,800,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 
$1,732,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes $1,700,000 for the 
Office of Inspector General to increase its staffing levels by 
12 full-time equivalents [FTE]. The Committee expects the 
Inspector General to use this funding increase to hire staff 
with the expertise necessary to evaluate the performance of the 
Federal Aviation Administration in overseeing aviation safety, 
managing the national airspace, and modernizing its capital 
programs.
    As the aviation industry grows in size and complexity, the 
programs and policies of the Federal Aviation Administration 
also grow increasingly complicated. In recent years, for 
example, the agency has restructured its safety oversight 
program to follow a risk-based model and begun an effort to 
modernize the entire air transportation system. The Committee 
relies on the Inspector General and his staff to provide 
objective analysis of Federal Aviation Administration's 
programs. For this reason, the Committee believes that the 
Inspector General needs to maintain an adequate staffing level 
and to ensure that his staff are equipped with the necessary 
expertise.
    In addition, the OIG will receive $6,024,000 transferred 
from other agencies in this bill for audit and investigation 
activities within that agency, as noted below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration..........................      $3,824,000
Federal Transit Administration..........................       2,000,000
Office of the Secretary.................................         100,000
National Transportation Safety Board....................         100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 2008..................      $26,325,000      $25,075,000
Budget estimate, 2009.................       23,085,000       26,385,000
Committee recommendation..............       26,847,000       25,597,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$26,847,000. This funding level is equal to the request by the 
Surface Transportation Board, $3,762,000 more than the 
President's request, and $522,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 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 clarifies the requirement to fund certain 
programs, projects and activities identified in this report 
within the accounts of the Federal Highway Administration, 
Federal Railroad Administration, and Federal Transit 
Administration.
    Section 187 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 188 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 $500,000 or more is 
announced by the Department or its modal administration.
    Section 189 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 190 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 191 establishes requirements for reprogramming 
actions by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 192 eliminates certain solid waste processing 
entities from the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation 
Board.
    Section 193 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 194 limits to 10 percent the amount of funds from 
each discretionary program that can be used for the Department 
of Transportation's congestion initiatives, after taking into 
account projects specified in this act and SAFETEA-LU as well 
as funds necessary to fulfill obligations in any existing 
agreements between the Department of Transportation and 
metropolitan areas.
    Section 195 makes funding available for the reimbursement 
of costs associated with a ferryboat service while the Route 
240 bridge over the Missouri River is being replaced.
    Section 196 extends the availability for CMAQ funds to be 
used for rail service in New Mexico.
    Section 197 requires that any fiscal year 2006 through 2009 
section 5309 bus category funds earmarked under section 
3044(a)(598) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU] that 
are unobligated or unexpended in a grant for the ``OATS, 
Incorporated, MO-ITS Information and Billing System and Bus 
Facilities'' be available to OATS, Incorporated for bus and 
bus-related facilities.
    Section 198 requires that any fiscal year 2006 through 2009 
funds earmarked under section 1702 of SAFETEA-LU that are 
unobligated or unexpended shall be available for maintenance, 
repair and reconstruction of the Tucker Bridge in the city of 
St. Louis, Missouri.
    Section 199 requires the Department of Transportation, 
including the Federal Highway Administration and National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to conduct a study of 
the fuel consumption savings and safety ramifications generated 
by the expanded use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles on 
roadways with a maximum speed limit of 40 miles per hour.

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008.................................... $37,636,952,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................  39,075,851,000
Committee recommendation................................  42,363,811,000

                          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 2009 an 
appropriation of $42,363,811,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is $4,726,859,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $3,287,960,000 more then the 
budget request.
    The Committee reiterates that the Department must limit the 
reprogramming of funds between the program, projects, and 
activities within each account to not more than $500,000 
without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 
Unless otherwise identified in the bill or report, the most 
detailed allocation of funds presented in the budget 
justifications is approved, with any deviation from such 
approved allocation subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements. It is the intent of the Committee that all 
carryover funds in the various accounts, including recaptures 
and de-obligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above. No changes may be made to any 
program, project, or activity if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy, without prior approval of the Committees 
on Appropriations. Finally, the Committee expects to be 
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs or 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations, as well as be identified, on a monthly basis, 
of all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or 
discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree 
between the Department and any other entity, including the 
estimated costs of such decrees. No reprogramming between 
accounts is allowed under this bill.

                          Executive Direction

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $24,980,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      24,791,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides all Personnel Compensation and 
Benefits and Non-Personnel Services funding for the Office of 
the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Office of 
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of 
Public Affairs, and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization. Additionally, funding is provided for the 
executive management in the offices of the Chief Financial 
Officer, the General Counsel, the Office of Administration, the 
Office of Public and Indian Housing, the Office of Community 
Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, the Office of 
Policy Development and Research, and the Office of Fair Housing 
and Equal Opportunity. These individuals are responsible for 
developing policy and managing the resources necessary to carry 
out HUD's mission. The core mission of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development is to support community 
development, increase access to affordable housing free from 
discrimination and help Americans achieve the dream of 
homeownership.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,791,000 
for this account, which is $24,791,000 more than the budget 
request and $189,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 level. The 
budget request eliminated this account and transferred these 
functions to the ``Administration, Operations and Management 
account.'' The appropriated levels for each account reflect the 
actual needs based on updated information provided by HUD prior 
to the Committee mark up of the bill. Amounts are made 
available as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary..      $4,047,480
Office of Hearings and Appeals..........................       1,681,140
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization..         567,240
Immediate Office of the Chief Financial Officer.........         750,360
Immediate Office of the General Counsel.................       1,580,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and        2,828,630
 Intergovernmental Relations............................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs....       2,694,500
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration....       1,047,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian        1,669,430
 Affairs................................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community and            1,778,650
 Planning Development...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal         3,936,000
 Housing Commissioner...................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development       1,490,850
 and Research...........................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and           719,820
 Equal Opportunity......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2008 included a new 
salaries and expense structure through nine separate accounts. 
Previously, HUD administered all salaries and expenses though a 
single ``Management and Administration'' account. This new 
structure was designed to improve transparency and to give the 
Committee greater oversight for these appropriated funds. This 
structure also included an ``Executive Direction'' account that 
includes the Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary and 
Assistant Secretaries to increase accountability over the lead 
policymakers of the Department. The fiscal year 2009 budget 
request proposes to eliminate the ``Executive Direction'' 
account and transfer these functions into the ``Administration, 
Operations and Management'' account which was designed to cover 
non-personnel expenses for the Department and included 
personnel compensation and benefits for divisions within HUD 
that provide Department-wide assistance. The Committee rejects 
this request and maintains the previous structure established 
in fiscal year 2008. The Committee notes that the Consolidated 
Appropriation Act of 2008 included bill language instructing 
the Department to follow the structure of that bill for the 
administration's fiscal year 2009 budget justification. The 
Committee once again instructs the Department to use this 
structure in submitting the fiscal year 2010 budget 
justification.
    The Secretary is authorized to transfer funds within 
offices under Executive Direction following written 
notification to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, provided that no amount for any office may be 
increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all transfers. 
Notice of any change in funding greater than 5 percent must be 
submitted for prior approval by the Committees. Further, the 
Secretary must provide quarterly written notification to the 
Committees regarding the status of pending congressional 
reports. The bill also provides that no more than $25,000 
provided under the immediate Office of the Secretary shall be 
available for the official reception and representation 
expenses as the Secretary may determine.

               Administration, Operations, and Management

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $493,630,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     546,218,000
Committee recommendation................................     527,433,640

    The Administration, Operations and Management [AOM] account 
is the backbone of HUD's operations, and consists of several 
offices that are supposed to work seamlessly to provide the 
support services required to ensure the Department performs its 
core mission, and is compliant with all legal, operational, and 
financial guidelines established by the Congress for the 
benefit of the Nation. The AOM account funds the personnel 
compensation and benefits costs of the remaining staff in the 
Office of General Counsel, the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer, and the Office of Administration, as well as the 
entire staff in the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, 
the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity, the 
Office of Field Policy and Management, the Office of 
Departmental Operations and Coordination, and the Office of 
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This account also 
contains Non-Personnel Services funding for the Department.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $527,433,640 
for this account, which is $18,784,360 less than the budget 
request and $33,803,640 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. 
The appropriated levels for each account reflect the actual 
needs based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee mark-up of the bill. This appropriation will support 
hiring in each of the program offices. At the time of 
publication of this report, the Department has more than 700 
vacancies, and the Committee will continue to monitor hiring 
throughout the 2009 fiscal year. Funds are made available as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Administration Personnel Compensation and          $75,510,000
 Benefits...............................................
Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination            11,003,940
 Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Field Policy and Management Personnel               48,817,430
 Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Personnel             13,438,200
 Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel               34,028,820
 Compensation and Benefits..............................
Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation and      84,837,460
 Benefits...............................................
Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity        3,085,120
 Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives                1,215,280
 Personnel Compensation and Benefits....................
Non-personnel expenses..................................     255,497,390
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee continues to provide for the necessary 
administrative and non-administrative expenses of the 
Department. Funds may be used for advertising and promotional 
activities that support the housing mission area. Further, the 
Secretary is authorized to transfer funds between offices under 
this account, after such transfer has been submitted to, and 
received written approval by, the Committees on Appropriations. 
No appropriation for any office may be increased or decreased 
by more than 10 percent.

                  Personnel Compensation and Benefits


                       PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $173,310,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     190,340,000
Committee recommendation................................     190,390,100

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 46 field offices (funding 
for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is provided out 
of the Executive Direction Account) in the Office of Public and 
Indian Housing [PIH]. PIH is charged with ensuring the 
availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing, creating 
opportunities for resident's self sufficiency and economic 
independence, and assuring the fiscal integrity of all public 
housing agencies. The Office ensures that safe, decent and 
affordable housing is available to Native American families, 
creates economic opportunities for tribes and Indian housing 
residents, assists tribes in the formulation of plans and 
strategies for community development, and assures fiscal 
integrity in the operation of the programs. The Office also 
administers programs authorized in the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA], which 
provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native 
Hawaiians. PIH also manages the Housing Choice Voucher program, 
in which tenant-based vouchers increase affordable housing 
choices for low-income families. Tenant-based vouchers enable 
families to lease safe, decent, and affordable privately-owned 
rental housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $190,390,100 
for this account, which is $50,100 more than the budget request 
and $17,080,100 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. The 
appropriated level for this account reflects the actual needs 
based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee mark-up of the bill.

                   COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $90,310,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      95,035,000
Committee recommendation................................      94,233,700

    This account provides salary and benefits funding for 
Community Planning and Development [CPD] staff in headquarters 
and in 43 field offices, (funding for the immediate office of 
the Assistant Secretary is provided out of the Executive 
Direction account). CPD's mission is to enable the progress of 
viable urban, suburban and rural communities by promoting 
integrated approaches to community and economic development. 
CPO programs also assist in the expansion of opportunities for 
low-and moderate-income individuals and families in moving 
towards homeownership. The Assistant Secretary for CPD 
administers formula and competitive grant programs as well as 
guaranteed loan programs that help communities plan and finance 
their growth and development. These programs also help 
communities increase their capacity to govern and provide 
shelter and services for homeless persons and other persons 
with special needs, including person with HIV/AIDS.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $94,233,700 
for this account, which is $801,300 less than the budget 
request and $3,923,700 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. 
The appropriated level for this account reflects the actual 
needs based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee markup of the bill.

                                HOUSING

Appropriation,2008......................................    $334,450,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     354,299,000
Committee recommendation................................     363,198,000

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 52 field locations, 
(funding for the immediate office of the Assistant Secretary/
FHA Housing Commissioner is provided out of the Executive 
Direction account) in the Office of Housing. The Office of 
Housing is responsible for implementing programs to assist 
projects for occupancy by very low-income and moderate-income 
households, to provide capital grants to nonprofit sponsors for 
the development of housing for the elderly or handicapped, and 
to conduct several regulatory functions. The Office also 
administers Federal Housing Administration [FHA] programs that 
help lenders reduce exposure to the risk of default. These 
programs underwrite mortgages or loan insurance to finance new 
construction, rehabilitation or the purchase of existing 
dwelling units. The Office also provides services to maintain 
and preserve home ownership, especially for underserved 
population. This assistance allows lenders to make lower-cost 
financing available to more borrowers for home and home 
improvement loans, and apartment, hospital, and nursing home 
loans. FHA provides a vital link in addressing America's 
homeownership and affordable housing needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $363,198,000 
for this account, which is $8,899,000 more than the budget 
request and $28,748,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. 
The appropriated level for this account reflects the actual 
needs based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee mark-up of the bill. The Committee notes that the 
updated information provided by HUD modified the fiscal year 
2009 budget request for this account from $354,299,000 to 
$348,198,470. Because of the high-risk issues facing FHA, the 
Committee recommends a $15,000,000 increase over the fiscal 
year 2009 modified budget request for additional staffing, 
including subcontracts and special needs in areas that are 
subject to crisis situations that could place FHA Mutual 
Mortgage Fund at unanticipated risk of loss. Without needed 
staff and mortgage expertise, FHA is at risk of sustaining 
excessive losses that could put FHA at risk of becoming 
economically unviable.
    The Committee also recommends a $24,000,000 increase the 
administrative and contract expenses under the ``Mutual 
Mortgage Insurance Program Account'' to enable FHA to 
modernized their information technology systems and obtain the 
appropriate administrative support to meet unanticipated FHA 
needs.
    The Committee is concerned that the President's budget 
provides inadequate staffing needs to address the reform and 
expansion of the Federal Housing Administration [FHA]. The 
Committee, through hearings and direct communications with the 
Department, has repeatedly warned the Department to provide the 
resources sufficient to meet the responsibilities of an 
expanding role for FHA. The Committee notes that at present, 
FHA has 289 vacancies. The Committee encourages the Secretary 
to work with the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to 
provide FHA direct hiring authority; in order to expedite the 
filling of these vacancies and to provide FHA the stability 
necessary to protect the financial integrity of the FHA single 
family housing program. The Committee notes that OPM has 
recently granted direct-hire flexibilities to the Department of 
Health and Human Service's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 
Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and the Department of 
Justice.

         OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $8,250,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       8,559,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

    This account provides all salary and benefits funding to 
support Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA] 
headquarters staff. GNMA programs help expand the supply of 
affordable housing in the United States by linking the capital 
markets to the Nation's housing markets. GNMA accomplishes this 
by facilitating the financing of residential mortgage loans 
insured or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration 
[FHA], the Department of Veteran Affairs [VA], and additional 
entities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000, 
which is $1,441,000 more than the budget request and $1,750,000 
more than the 2008 enacted level. The Committee provides an 
increase to cover the expansion of anticipated FHA guarantees 
for fiscal year 2009. The appropriated level for this account 
reflects the actual needs based on updated information provided 
by HUD prior to the Committee mark-up of the bill.

                    POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $16,950,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      19,829,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,070,850

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 16 field locations, 
(funding for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is 
provided out of the Executive Direction account) in the Office 
of Policy Development and Research [PD&R]. PD&R supports the 
Department's efforts to help create cohesive, economically 
healthy communities. PD&R is responsible for maintaining 
current information on housing needs, market conditions, and 
existing programs, as well as conducting research on priority 
housing and community development issues. The Office provides 
reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy 
decisions.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,070,850 
for this account, which is $1,758,150 less than the budget 
request and $1,120,850 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. 
The appropriated level for this account reflects the actual 
needs based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee markup of the bill.

                   FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $63,140,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      67,905,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,020,990

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support staff in headquarters and in 42 field locations, 
(funding for the immediate office of Assistant Secretary is 
provided out of the Executive Direction account) in the Office 
of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO]. FHEO is 
responsible for investigating, resolving, and prosecuting 
complaints of housing discrimination and conducting education 
and outreach activities to increase awareness of the 
requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The Office also develops 
and interprets fair housing policy, processes complaints, 
performs compliance reviews and provides oversight and 
technical assistance to local housing authorities and community 
development agencies regarding section 3 of the Housing and 
Urban Development Act of 1968.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,020,990, 
which is $1,115,990 more than the budget request and $5,880,990 
more than the fiscal year 2008 level. The appropriated level 
for this account reflects the actual needs based on updated 
information provided by HUD prior to the Committee markup of 
the bill.

            OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $6,980,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       7,815,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,727,950

    This account provides salary and benefits funding to 
support the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 
[OHHLHC] headquarters staff. OHHLHC administers and manages 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. The Office 
also develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and 
policies applicable to HUD programs, designs lead-based paint 
and healthy homes training programs, administers lead-hazard 
control and healthy homes grant programs, and implements the 
lead and healthy homes research program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,727,950 for 
this account, which is $1,087,050 less than the budget request 
and $252,050 less than the fiscal year 2008 level. The 
appropriated level for this account reflects the actual needs 
based on updated information provided by HUD prior to the 
Committee markup of the bill.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                     TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008\1\................................. $16,391,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................  15,881,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................  16,703,000,000

\1\Include an advance appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
approximately 2 million families. The program also funds 
incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families 
and vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the owner 
of the project has decided to leave the section 8 program. The 
program also provides for the replacement of units lost from 
the assisted housing inventory (tenant protection vouchers). 
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], Housing and Urban 
Development Veterans Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH] Program and 
the Family Unification program. Under FSS, families receive job 
training and employment that should lead to a decrease in their 
dependency on Government assistance and help them move toward 
economic self-sufficiency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$16,703,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; including $4,200,000,000 
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 
2009. This amount is $822,000,000 more than the budget request 
and $312,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
    The Committee recommends $14,827,000,000 for the renewal 
costs for section 8 contracts which is $500,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $126,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 level. The Committee notes that the budget request 
provides only $160,071,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 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, 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 2008. This formula is based on data 
derived through the voucher management system [VMS] on the most 
recently completed Federal fiscal year. This formula provides 
an efficient method to capture actual costs incurred by PHAs 
including variations in the rental markets.
    Tenant Protection Vouchers.--The Committee recommends 
$200,000,000 for tenant protection assistance. This is 
$50,000,000 more than the budget request and the same as the 
fiscal year 2008 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. 
The Committee has also included bill language allowing tenant 
protection in the form of project-based assistance to prevent 
the displacement of seniors currently residing in section 202 
properties built between 1959 and 1974 that are refinanced or 
rehabilitated. These two statutory changes will prevent the 
loss of critical housing assistance in communities around the 
Nation.
    Set-asides for Special Circumstances.--The Committee 
provides a set-aside of $100,000,000 to allow the Secretary to 
adjust allocations to PHAs under certain prescribed 
circumstances. They include (1) public housing agencies that 
experienced a significant increase, as determined by the 
Secretary, in renewal costs of tenant-based rental assistance 
resulting from unforeseen circumstances or any continued impact 
of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and voucher utilization or the 
impact from portability under section 8(r) of the act; (2) 
public housing agencies with voucher leasing rates at the end 
of the calendar year that exceed the average leasing for the 
12-month period used to establish the allocation; and/or (3) 
public housing agencies with vouchers that were not in use 
during the 12-month period in order to be available to meet a 
commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the act. A PHA 
should not receive an adjustment to their allocation from the 
funding provided under this section if the Secretary determines 
that such PHA, through negligence or intentional actions, would 
exceed their authorized level.
    Family Unification Program.--The Committee has provided 
$20,000,000 for incremental voucher assistance through the 
Family Unification Program. This level of funding is the same 
as the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $20,000,000 more than 
the budget request. The Committee has included language that 
requires the Secretary to make this funding available to 
entities with experience in using this program and the with the 
sufficient resources available to provide voucher recipients 
with appropriate supportive services.
    The Family Unification program assists families that have 
been separated, or are facing separation due to a lack of 
housing. The program also provides vouchers to youths age 18 to 
21 that are aging out of foster care, or those age 16 or older 
who lack adequate housing.
    The Committee encourages HUD to coordinate the release of 
these vouchers with providers that are part of HUD's Continuum 
of Care. Members of the Continuum of Care can assist public 
housing authorities identify families and youth that could 
benefit from this program. The Committee also hopes that these 
vouchers will be used to serve victims of domestic violence who 
lack a safe and stable home environment.
    HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program.--Today one 
out of every five homeless persons on the street is a veteran. 
In order to reduce these numbers, the Committee recommends 
$75,000,000 for the Housing and Urban Development Veterans 
Affairs Supportive Housing [HUD-VASH] program. This level of 
funding is equal to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and 
consistent with the budget request.
    In fiscal year 2008, the Committee provided new HUD-VASH 
vouchers for the first time since 1993. Through this joint 
program, HUD provides veterans with housing assistance while 
the Department of Veterans Affairs provides case management and 
other supportive services to veterans suffering from mental 
illness or substance abuse disorders. The HUD-VASH vouchers are 
used to move our veterans from the street or shelter into 
permanent housing. The funding provided in fiscal year 2008 
provided housing authorities with over 10,000 vouchers for 
veterans in every State, as well as the District of Columbia 
and Puerto Rico. The funding provided in fiscal year 2009 will 
serve an additional 10,000 homeless veterans.
    Administrative Fees and Family Self-Sufficiency 
Coordinators.--The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 for 
administrative fees and the cost of Family Self-Sufficiency 
Coordinators. For the administrative fees account, the 
Committee recommends $1,450,000,000, which is $50,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $99,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 level. The Committee also includes bill language 
allowing the Secretary to utilize unobligated balances, 
including recaptures and carryovers, remaining from funds 
appropriated under the heading ``Annual Contributions for 
Assisted Housing'' and the heading ``Housing Certificate Fund'' 
for fiscal years 2008 and prior fiscal years to increase 
funding as needed for administrative fees. The Committee 
recommends $50,000,000 for the Family Self-Sufficiency 
Coordinators, which is $2,000,000 more than the budget request 
and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. The 
Committee funds this program within the administrative fee 
account to expedite payments for this service.
    Working Capital Transfer.--The Committee recommends 
allowing up to $7,929,000 to be transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund. This level is the same as the budget request and 
$1,435,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. The Committee 
includes bill language requiring that this funding be used 
solely to enhance the voucher management leasing and cost data 
system. This is necessary for the Department to have the proper 
tools to monitor the largest appropriated account within HUD. 
The Committee has experienced difficulty receiving reliable and 
timely information regarding funding balances in this account. 
Such information is essential for the Committee to carry out 
the primary funding and oversight decisions and 
responsibilities. The Committee includes bill language 
requiring the Department to publish the voucher management 
system leasing and cost data on the Department's website prior 
to drawing down this funding.
    Reducing Unusable Balances.--The fiscal year 2009 budget 
request includes bill language allowing the Secretary to reduce 
a public housing agency's unusable net restricted assets 
(section 8 reserve accounts) in amounts as determined by the 
Secretary. These reserve accounts are derived from section 8 
voucher funding. Each public housing authority is limited to a 
specific number of vouchers under lease often referred to as 
the ``authorized level''. Reserve balances are divided into two 
categories. ``Useable reserves'' can be used by a PHA at 
anytime to fund additional vouchers up to their authorized 
level. ``Unusable reserves'' are balances that are in addition 
to the full cost to lease up to their ``authorized level'' and 
these funds cannot be used by a public housing authority.
    The Committee recommends a reduction of a portion of the 
unusable reserves in fiscal year 2009. The Committee 
anticipates unusable reserve balances will be more than 
sufficient to cover the cost of this reduction in 2009 while 
providing no adverse impact on public housing authorities or 
their tenants.
    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.

                    PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $6,381,810,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................   7,400,000,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   8,450,200,000

\1\Includes an advance appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$8,450,200,000 for the annual renewal of project-based 
contracts, of which up to $232,000,000 is for the cost of 
contract administrators and up to $10,000,000 may be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund. This funding is 
$1,050,200,000 more than the budget request and $2,068,390,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
    For over 2 years, the Committee has attempted without 
success to work with HUD to determine the full costs needed to 
renew all expiring project-based contracts for their usual 12-
month term. These efforts have made it clear to the Committee 
that both HUD and OMB have been deliberately misleading the 
Congress and the public on these actual program costs. Instead, 
HUD and OMB have refused to request adequate resources to 
stabilize this program and, instead, have taken to renewing 
contracts for shorter periods of time that will be just long 
enough to push program costs into the next fiscal year. Other 
budget game-playing by the HUD has included deliberately 
delaying payments to owners for periods of up to 6 months--
causing owners to miss mortgage and utility payments and 
calling into question the Governments commitment to this long-
term rental assistance program. In so doing, HUD has put 
hundreds of contracts at risk covering thousands of tenants 
across the Nation. Further compounding the funding shortage has 
been the requirement for HUD to increasingly convert expiring 
multiyear contracts into annual contracts, effectively boosting 
program costs year over year.
    Most recently, HUD's financial gimmickry with this program 
appears to be designed to push the financial ``day of 
reckoning'' for this program off until this next 
administration. The budget materials submitted by HUD concede 
the problems associated with ``payment timeliness'' and also 
concede that the budget request will only be sufficient to 
incrementally fund contracts until December 2009. With all 
those incremental contracts expiring each year, HUD will need a 
massive infusion of funds to renew a slew of contracts. The 
Committee has sought to address this problem by providing an 
unprecedented annual increase in this account of 
$2,068,390,000. The amount provided is $1,050,200,000 more than 
the administration's budget request. While the amount provided 
still will not be sufficient to allow HUD to return to the 
practice of renewing all expiring contracts for the usual 12-
month duration, this additional funding should restore some 
stability to the program by allowing the Department to enter 
into longer term contracts with owners. Such stability should 
provide greater certainty that tenants will be able to stay in 
their homes.
    Working Capital Fund Transfer.--The Committee includes bill 
language for the Working Capital Fund transfer requiring that 
this funding be used solely for the development and maintenance 
of support systems needed to adequately administer and monitor 
the project-based section 8 account.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $2,438,964,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   2,024,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,444,000,000

                          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 $2,444,000,000 
for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $420,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $5,036,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 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 $14,577,000 to be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund. The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 for technical assistance activities which is 
$4,580,000 more than the budget request and the same as the 
2008 level.
    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.
    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 including safety measures to address 
crime and drug-related criminal activity.
    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, 2008....................................  $4,200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   4,300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,400,000,000

                          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 $4,400,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, which is $100,000,000 
more than the budget request and $200,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 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, 2008....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
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 the same as the 
fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $100,000,000 more than the 
budget request.
    The HOPE VI program continues to transform neighborhoods 
and improve the lives of public housing residents. Revitalizing 
neighborhoods and creating mixed income communities is a 
challenging endeavor. However, the Committee notes that there 
are many examples of communities across the country that have 
undergone successful transformation using the HOPE VI program. 
The Committee is also encouraged by the use of green practices 
and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] 
standards in the design of HOPE VI projects. The Committee 
expects HUD to encourage the use of such practices in future 
projects.
    Some program grantees continue to face challenges in moving 
forward with project development and construction. The 
Committee is especially concerned about older grantees that 
have struggled to meet program and construction goals. The 
Committee directs that of the funds provided for the HOPE VI 
program, $2,400,000 is to be used for technical assistance. The 
Committee further directs that no less than $1,000,000 of this 
funding be used to hire expeditors to assist grantees that have 
been slow to expend project funds and move forward with their 
projects. Such expeditors should have demonstrated experience 
assisting public housing authorities in developing strategies 
and plans that enable grantees to meet production goals. In 
addition to assisting older grantees through the use of 
expeditors, the Committee also encourages HUD to examine all 
options available to ensure that funds are expended in order to 
improve public housing, including redirecting funds to projects 
with the capacity to move forward with revitalization efforts 
in a timely manner.
    The Committee is encouraged by HUD's efforts this year to 
provide additional assistance to grantees, especially those 
facing imminent deadlines. The Committee believes that this 
additional attention has resulted in increased funding being 
expended by grantees in fiscal year 2008. The Committee 
continues to encourage HUD to be in regular contact with 
grantees about their deadlines and provide them with the 
appropriate technical assistance. The Committee directs the 
agency to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations with quarterly updates on the status of projects 
and grantees' expenditure of funds.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $630,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     627,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     650,000,000

                          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 $650,000,000 
for the Native American Housing Block Grant, of which 
$9,000,000 is set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan 
level not to exceed $420,000,000 for the section 601 Loan 
Guarantee Loan Program. This total level is $23,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $20,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 level.
    The Committee includes $4,000,000 for technical assistance 
through a national organization representing Native American 
housing interests and $4,250,000 for inspections of Indian 
housing units, contract expertise, training, technical 
assistance, oversight and management.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       5,940,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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 $10,000,000 
for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, which is 
$4,060,000 more than the budget request and $1,000,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2008 level. Of the amount provided, 
$299,211 shall be for training and technical assistance 
activities including up to $100,000 for related travel for 
Hawaii-based HUD employees.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008..................       $7,450,000     $367,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009.................        9,000,000      420,000,000
Committee recommendation..............        9,000,000      420,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $9,000,000 in 
program subsidies to support a loan level of $420,000,000. This 
subsidy level is the same as the budget request and $1,550,000 
more than the fiscal year 2008 level.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account     guaranteed
                                                              loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008..................       $1,044,000      $41,504,255
Budget estimate, 2009.................  ...............  ...............
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. This 
subsidy level is $1,044,000 more than the budget request and 
the same as the fiscal year 2008 level.

                   Community Planning and Development


          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $300,100,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     300,100,000
Committee recommendation................................     315,100,000

                          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 $315,100,000 
for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, 
which provides housing and supportive services to persons 
living with HIV/AIDS. This level of funding is $15,000,000 more 
than both the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and the budget 
request. Of the funding provided, the Committee has included 
language that allows $1,485,000 to be used for technical 
assistance and limits the amount available for transfer to the 
Department's Working Capital Fund to $1,750,000. The Committee 
has also included language requiring HUD to allocate these 
funds in a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the 
extent that these programs are determined to be meeting the 
needs of persons with AIDS.
    The Committee is pleased with the agency's effort to 
promote the use of permanent supportive housing as an effective 
model for keeping persons with HIV/AIDS in stable housing. This 
has been demonstrated as an effective way to improve health 
outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS. A recent study on 
the effectiveness of placing homeless individuals with chronic 
medical conditions, including HIV/AIDS, into permanent 
supportive housing proved that stable housing was successful in 
not only improving the housing outcomes of those receiving it, 
but also in reducing the costs of caring for those individuals.
    The Committee looks forward to the results of another 
scientific study that HUD is conducting in partnership with the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as other 
public and private organizations. This study is examining the 
effects of housing on HIV disease progression, transmission 
risks and medical utilization. The Committee is encouraged, 
though, by preliminary evidence suggesting the positive effect 
that stable housing can have on improving the health of persons 
living with HIV/AIDS.
    The Committee notes the success that HUD had in exceeding 
its performance goal for the percentage of HOPWA program 
clients that maintained housing stability, avoided 
homelessness, and accessed treatment. In fiscal year 2007, the 
program achieved a 93 percent success rate in this goal. The 
Committee believes that the additional funding provided will 
allow the program to continue to provide housing to persons 
living with HIV/AIDS in an efficient and effective manner.
    The President's budget funds the program at last year's 
level, and has not included any additional resources to cover 
increasing rental and other associated inflationary costs. The 
Committee has therefore included $15,000,000 more than the 
President's request to ensure that all eligible grantees can 
continue to maintain the current level of assistance and 
services to persons living with HIV/AIDS.

            OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

                          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 $30,000,000 
for the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development for 
fiscal year 2009, which is $13,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 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.
    Economic Development Assistance for Federally Recognized 
Indian Tribes.--The Committee is concerned about the high rates 
of unemployment and poverty experienced by Native Americans, 
which are nearly twice as high as those of other Americans. The 
Committee believes that it is critical to give federally 
recognized Indian tribes the resources and tools that will 
enable them to promote economic development, create jobs and 
increase housing capacity. The Committee has provided an 
increase of $12,000,000 for the Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development for the purpose of conducting economic 
development and entrepreneurship activities for federally 
recognized Indian tribes. This funding should be used for such 
activities as the establishment of revolving loan programs, 
business planning and development and for increasing affordable 
housing. In addition to these activities, HUD should also use 
this funding to increase capacity on federally recognized 
Indian tribes by conducting outreach and training. The training 
and outreach provided should assist federally recognized tribes 
in leveraging additional resources, including tax credits, and 
developing innovative approaches to addressing their housing 
and employment needs.

                       community development fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $3,865,800,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   3,000,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,889,465,000

                          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 $3,889,465,000 
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2009. This 
level is $889,465,000 more than the budget request and 
$23,665,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
    For the fourth 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 2009, 
the administration's budget proposes a funding cut of 
approximately 18 percent from the fiscal year 2008 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 94.8 and 96.4 percent of CDBG funds 
benefited low- and moderate-income persons in fiscal year 2007. 
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 is 
disappointed with the administration's proposed reduction of 
the CDBG formula grant program by $659,025,000 or approximately 
18 percent. The Committee has heard from communities all around 
the Nation that are struggling to address the housing crisis 
and the destructive impact on housing, employment, the tax base 
and crime. The Committee is dismayed that the administration 
would propose to reduce one of the Federal Government's most 
effective tools to stabilize these communities. The Committee 
rejects the administration's proposed funding cut.
    The Committee includes $65,000,000 for grants to Indian 
tribes for essential economic and community development 
activities which is $7,580,000 more than the budget request and 
$3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
    The Committee includes language indicating funding made 
available within this account, $3,175,000, may be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund. This is equal to the budget 
request. The Committee includes the administration's proposal 
for $5,000,000 to be used for technical assistance activities 
within CDBG. The Committee recommends funding for the Economic 
Development Initiative [EDI] and the Neighborhood Initiatives 
program [NI]. The Committee clarifies that funding provided 
through EDI and NI can not be used to reimburse costs already 
incurred on a project before an award is made by HUD for that 
specific project.
    The Committee includes modified language making technical 
corrections to economic development initiatives funded under 
this heading in prior appropriation acts.
    The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:

                    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
180 Turning Lives Around Hazlet, NJ, for the design and       $1,000,000
 construction of a new domestic violence shelter........
Acadiana Outreach Center, Lafayette, LA, for building of       1,000,000
 a mixed income housing development in Lafayette, LA....
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. Toledo, OH, for         750,000
 renovation of the former Western Union Building located
 at the corner of Huron Street and Jefferson Avenue in
 downtown Toledo, OH....................................
Albany Dougherty Industrial Park, Albany, GA, for                200,000
 transformation of real estate property and
 infrastructure into a Certified Industrial Park........
Alexandria--Riverfront Multi-State Development for the           500,000
 Alexandria Riverfront, Alexandria, LA..................
American Lighthouse Foundation, Rockland, ME, for                400,000
 restoration and preservation of Maine's historic
 lighthouses............................................
Appalachia Service Project, WV, for providing free home          500,000
 repairs to low-income families in Southern West
 Virginia...............................................
Ardmore Development Authority/City of Ardmore, OK, for           200,000
 infrastructure improvements necessary to develop the
 Ardmore Technology Park................................
Arlington Chamber of Commerce, Arlington, TX, for                200,000
 development of an entrepreneurial center...............
Armstrong County, PA, for site preparation and                   200,000
 redevelopment of a brownfield site.....................
Audubon Mississippi, Moss Point, MS, for a nature-based        1,000,000
 education facility.....................................
Audubon Nature Institute, New Orleans, LA, for building          200,000
 a Living Science Museum................................
Barnesville-Lamar County Industrial Park, Barnesville,           500,000
 GA, for site preparation and infrastructure............
Berkshire Theater Festival, Stockbridge, MA, for                 200,000
 renovation and revitalization of the Berkshire Theatre
 Festival's facilities and grounds......................
Bernalillo County, NM, for transitional housing facility         600,000
 for recovering substance abuse clients.................
Beyond Housing, St. Louis, MO, for the demolition and          1,500,000
 development of the Pagedale Community Development
 Initiative.............................................
Big Sky Econ. Dev. Authority, Billings, MT, for                  325,000
 development and urban renewal in East Downtown Billings
Boys and Girls Club of Fauquier County, VA, for facility         200,000
 renovations in support of the new building, including
 making the building handicap accessible................
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua, Nashua, NH, for           500,000
 renovation and expansion of the facility...............
Boys and Girls Club of the Grand River, McLaughlin, SD,          200,000
 for the Boys and Girls Club of the Grand River Area
 (South Dakota sites) for facility upgrades to existing
 and new sites on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation...
Care and Share Food Bank, Colorado Springs, CO, for              300,000
 equipment to be used to expand services to low-income
 individuals............................................
Casey County Fiscal Court, Liberty, KY, for renovations          200,000
 at the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Expo Center....
Casper College, Casper, WY, for the creation of business         500,000
 incubators.............................................
Cathedral Soup Kitchen, Inc., Camden, NJ, for the                200,000
 construction of a new facility.........................
Center for People in Need, Lincoln, NE, for construction       1,000,000
 and renovation to create the Non-Profits and Education/
 Training Center........................................
Central Utah Pioneer Heritage Association, UT, for               200,000
 construction and project development funds.............
Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, PA,            200,000
 for site preparation and redevelopment as part of the
 West End revitalization initiative.....................
Charleston Kanawha Housing Authority, Chas. WV, for new        2,000,000
 low-income housing at the Littlepage Terrace and
 Washington Manor public housing facilities in downtown
 Charleston, WV.........................................
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Charlotte,            400,000
 NC, for transforming vacant and blighted properties
 along the Statesville Avenue Corridor into affordable
 housing................................................
Child Abuse and Neglect Council Of Oakland County,               500,000
 Pontiac, MI, for renovation and expansion of the
 facility...............................................
Chilkat Indian Village/Klukwan, AK, for construction of          500,000
 Heritage Center and Bald Eagle Observatory.............
Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT, for transportation           750,000
 and rehabilitation of housing units from Malmstrom Air
 force base that would otherwise be destroyed to the
 Rocky Boy's Reservation................................
Christopher House, Chicago, IL, for the construction of          250,000
 Logan Square Family Resource Center....................
City of Ada, OK, for construction of a water storage             200,000
 tower..................................................
City of Aliceville, AL, for downtown revitalization.....         400,000
City of Beaumont, TX, for streetscape improvements......         200,000
City of Berlin, NH, for the acquisition and demolition           300,000
 of dilapidated housing.................................
City of Billings, MT, for environmental remediation and          500,000
 demolition of building previously owned by U.S. Naval
 Reserve................................................
City of Boise, ID, for design and construction of the            700,000
 City of Boise's geothermal system expansion............
City of Bridgeport, CT, for relevant outreach, advocacy,         500,000
 education, financial assistance and support services...
City of Brockton, MA, for renovations to the War                 200,000
 Memorial building and redevelopment of blighted
 downtown area..........................................
City of Carbondale, PA, for downtown revitalization              200,000
 efforts................................................
City of Carlsbad, NM, for continued construction of a            200,000
 youth sports complex in Carlsbad, New Mexico...........
City of Charleston, SC, for the preservation,                    300,000
 construction, and critically needed improvements to the
 St. Andrews' neighborhood's low-income housing.........
City of Cincinnati, OH, for complete property                    500,000
 acquisition, demolition, and remediation of the Queen
 City Barrel area to create an urban industrial park....
City of Council Bluffs, IA, for housing rehabilitation           500,000
 and construction in the Playland Park neighborhood
 located north of I-480 and west of I-29................
City of Craig, AK, for the redevelopment of the                  350,000
 abandoned cannery property in the City of Craig........
City of Detroit, MI, for preservation and redevelopment        4,000,000
 of a public park and related business activities in the
 Corktown Neighborhood..................................
City of Easton, PA, for housing rehabilitation and               500,000
 neighborhood revitalization............................
City of Evanston, WY, for improvements to the Historic           400,000
 Evanston Roundhouse and Railyard in Evanston, Wyoming..
City of Highland Park, MI, for elimination of blight in          500,000
 the North Point neighborhood...........................
City of Hillsboro, TX, for streetscape improvements.....         200,000
City of Jackson, MS, for renovation and rehabilitation           400,000
 of the Thalia Mara Performing Arts Facility............
City of Jackson, MS, for the renovation of the Historic          750,000
 Medgar Evers Farish Street NAACP Office................
City of Jasper, AL, for an Industrial Park Development..         800,000
City of Kankakee, IL, for the purchase, renovation and           250,000
 conversion of houses that are in foreclosure,
 abandoned, or in disrepair to affordable use properties
City of Kotzebue, AK, for construction of recreation and         400,000
 fairgrounds area.......................................
City of Marshalltown, IA, for housing redevelopment in           600,000
 the Grant Park Neighborhood............................
City of Maysville, Maysville, KY, for the renovation of        2,700,000
 the Cox Building.......................................
City of Medford, MA, for downtown redevelopment and              200,000
 rehabilitation.........................................
City of Methuen, MA, for the rehabilitation and                  200,000
 redevelopment of blighted and underutilized buildings..
City of Midland, TX, for downtown redevelopment.........         200,000
City of Milwaukee, WI, Redevelopment Authority for site          200,000
 acquisition, demolition, remediation, and/or
 redevelopment of priority projects in the 30th Street
 Industrial Corridor....................................
City of Nashua, NH, for design and construction of               400,000
 downtown riverfront redevelopment program..............
City of North Adams, MA, for the redevelopment of                200,000
 historic downtown building.............................
City of Northwood, ND, for reconstruction of downtown            700,000
 retail and office space destroyed by a tornado.........
City of Orlando, FL, for redevelopment of blighted areas       1,000,000
 of Parramore neighborhood..............................
City of Oxford, MS, for renovation of the Powerhouse             300,000
 Community Arts Center..................................
City of Pierre, SD, for revitalization of the Pierre             200,000
 historic downtown area and waterfront development......
City of Portland, OR, for capital and operating costs to         600,000
 assist homeless and low income veterans with housing
 and supportive services................................
City of Reno, NV, for purchase of vacant buildings for           200,000
 Oliver Montello affordable housing projects............
City of Rocky Mount, NC, for renovation of existing              300,000
 buildings for the revitalization of downtown Rocky
 Mount..................................................
City of Rosslyn, WA, for structural upgrades and other           840,000
 improvements to Rosslyn's primary public facility......
City of South Salt Lake, UT, for streetscaping features          400,000
 along State and Main Streets between northern boundary
 of the City and I-80...................................
City of Spartanburg, SC, for installation of residential         400,000
 infrastructure.........................................
City of Tarrant, AL, for streetscaping and pedestrian            400,000
 walkways to support proposed economic development plans
City of Toledo, OH, for completion of asbestos abatement         500,000
 and to begin structural improvements for the
 redevelopment of the former ACME power plant building..
County of Tunica, MS, for restoration of existing                950,000
 buildings, construction of addition to the visitors
 center, and exhibit design to form a combine the
 visitors center, blues exhibit and gift shop into a
 Blues Gateway in the Mississippi Delta.................
City of Waterbury, CT, for the redevelopment of                  250,000
 brownfields............................................
City of Waterloo, IA, for demolition and redevelopment           400,000
 of a blighted area.....................................
City of Wilkes-Barre, PA, for revitalization of economic       1,000,000
 and recreational amenities at Coal Street Park.........
City of Wilson, NC, for clearing blighted structures             500,000
 from downtown Wilson and constructing new units for
 commercial occupancy...................................
City of Wrangell, AK, for renovation of a community              500,000
 center.................................................
Clark County Food Bank, Clark County, WA, for the                750,000
 construction of a food bank............................
Clearfield City, UT, for purchasing 2.29 blighted acres,         400,000
 and to fund the development of public open spaces......
Community Housing of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, KS,          900,000
 for the continuing revitalization efforts in the St.
 Peter's neighborhood...................................
CommunityWorks, Helena, MT, for facility construction...       1,000,000
Connie Lupardus, CAEZ, Clay, WV, for the construction            200,000
 and economic development activities of the Central
 Appalachian Empowerment Zone...........................
County of Hudson, NJ, for transformation of the former           400,000
 Koppers Coke site in Kearny into a 2 million square
 foot industrial park that includes warehousing and
 distribution space.....................................
County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, for                  850,000
 construction and renovation of the Lompoc Veterans
 Building...............................................
Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, for              500,000
 construction of a visitor center and recreational
 facilities.............................................
Downtown Emergency Services Center, Seattle, WA, for the         750,000
 provision of 83 studio apartments for chronically
 homeless, mentally ill people..........................
Downtown Jackson Plaza Incorporated, Jackson, MS, for          1,000,000
 construction of a civic gathering plaza................
East Moline Downtown Development, East Moline, IL, for           250,000
 capital improvements to infrastructure and development
 projects in downtown E. Moline, including acquisition
 and renovation of dilapidated structures...............
Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA, for the expansion of          300,000
 the current Community Center facility..................
Flagship Enterprise Center, Anderson, IN, for technology         500,000
 and infrastructure improvements........................
Four Bands Community Fund, Eagle Butte, SD, for the Four         250,000
 Bands Community Fund to enable the organization to
 capitalize a revolving loan program, and in addition
 provide business development assistance................
Granger, WA, for the construction of the Granger                 300,000
 Community Center.......................................
Grant County Food Bank, Silver City, NM, for the                 500,000
 rehabilitation or construction of a facility to serve
 as a food pantry and thrift store to serve the needs of
 Grant County...........................................
Great Falls Development Authority, Great Falls, MT, for        1,000,000
 infrastructure related construction along Black Eagle
 Road...................................................
Great Smoky Mountains Heritage Center Townsend, TN,              600,000
 Expansion and improvements to the Heritage Center......
Greene County Industrial Board, Greene County, AL,               300,000
 Industrial Park Development............................
Hawaii Public Housing Authority, HI, for code                    400,000
 enforcement and renovation of abandoned housing units
 to provide 22 housing units for low income individuals
 in Honolulu............................................
Highline-West Seattle Mental Health, Burien, WA, for the         225,000
 provision of permanent, affordable housing and on-site
 mental health treatment and case management for 22
 adults living with serious and persistent mental
 illness................................................
Hocking Athens Pery Community Action, Glouster, OH, for          250,000
 the renovation of the community center.................
Hope Community Development Corporation, Charleston, WV,          750,000
 for purchasing existing dilapidated properties for the
 construction of new homes..............................
Howard County, Ellicott City, MD, for construction and           400,000
 equipment for community rooms..........................
International Institute of RI, Providence, RI, for               300,000
 building renovations to expand and improve community
 services to low-income individuals.....................
Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des Moines, IA,       1,000,000
 for improving the physical and economic health of city
 centers................................................
Jackson County Board of Supervisors, Jackson County, MS,         200,000
 for improvements and enhancements to the County's multi-
 purpose community arena in Vancleave...................
King County Housing Authority, Seattle, WA, for                1,000,000
 neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and
 community investment...................................
Kitsap Mental Health Services, Bremerton, WA, for the            400,000
 provision of 16 residential and short-term
 stabilization beds for adults age 18 and over with
 severe or acute mental illness.........................
Kodiak Island Borough/Women's Bay, AK, for construction          500,000
 of an emergency shelter................................
Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI, for planning, design, and         500,000
 construction of the Laiopua 2020 Community Center......
Lake Area Improvement Corporation, Madison, SD, for              200,000
 expansion of the industrial park.......................
Lake Area Community Center, New Orleans, LA, for the             200,000
 building of a mixed income housing development in
 Lafayette, LA..........................................
Lakota Fund, Kyle, SD, for capitalization of a revolving         250,000
 loan program and business development assist-  ance....
Lewiston City, UT, for reconstruction and revitalization         250,000
 of local community recreation center...................
Los Pueblos Community Council, Ribera, NM, for                   900,000
 preservation and renovation of Old Ribera School
 Building for use as a community and cultural center....
MAC, Inc., Area Agency on Aging, Salisbury, MD, for the          400,000
 construction of a new building that will house programs
 and services for lower shore elders....................
Massachusetts Attorney General, MA, for repair of                200,000
 abandoned houses.......................................
Memphis Bioworks Foundation, TN, for construction of the         800,000
 UT-Baptist Research Park in the downtown Memphis
 Medical Center.........................................
Mercy Housing Lakefront, Chicago, IL, for the                    500,000
 development of supportive housing units for homeless in
 the City of Milwaukee..................................
Newport News, VA, for acquisition, demolition and                700,000
 relocation activities, and capital improvements of
 dilapidated housing....................................
Nickerson Community Center, Providence, RI, for building         600,000
 renovations to provide permanent rental housing for
 veterans who are chronically homeless..................
Northern Community Investment Corporation, St.                   700,000
 Johnsbury, VT, for the North County Broadband
 Initiative, NH.........................................
Northeast Community Center, Spokane County, WA, for the          500,000
 implementation of the third phase of the Center's
 expansion to include a new partner, Partners for
 Families and Children..................................
Northeast Community College, Norfolk, NE, for                    500,000
 construction of the College Center at South Sioux City,
 NE.....................................................
North-Missoula CDC, Missoula, MT, for construction of a        1,000,000
 neighborhood center....................................
Nye County, NV, for a multi-generational community               200,000
 facility in Amargosa Valley............................
Office of Economic Opportunity, VT, for homeless mental          250,000
 illness and substance abuse programs through Vermont
 Office of Economic Opportunity.........................
Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, Philadelphia,          200,000
 PA, for acquisition and rehabilitation of vacant
 properties as part of a low and moderate income housing
 initiative.............................................
Ojinjinkta Housing Development Corporation, LLC, Rosebud         600,000
 Home Manufacturing Facility, SD, for the inventory and
 equipment needed for the construction of affordable
 homes for Native Americans.............................
Oktibbeha County, MS, for restoration of the Oktibbeha           300,000
 County Courthouse......................................
Open Arms of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for                     300,000
 construction of a new building for Open Arms of
 Minnesota..............................................
Opportunity Village, Las Vegas, NV, for a new employment         600,000
 and training center....................................
Orange County Government, Orlando, FL, for renovations         1,000,000
 to a building to house a center that will engage and
 support the chronically homeless.......................
Orange County Great Park Corporation, CA, for                    500,000
 improvements to the Orange County Great Park...........
Our City Reading, Reading, PA, for a housing                     200,000
 rehabilitation initiative and down payment assistance
 for home buyers........................................
Pacific Gateway Center, HI, for retail business                  300,000
 incubator capital improvement project targeting
 immigrants, refugees and low-to-moderate income
 residents of Hawaii who seek entrepreneurship as a
 means of escaping poverty..............................
Para Los Ninos, Los Angeles, CA, for the renovation of           300,000
 the Vermont Avenue Family Resources Center.............
Pendleton Round-Up Association, Pendleton, OR, for the           750,000
 reconstruction and construction needs of the Pendleton
 Round-Up and Happy Canyon Facilities...................
Port of Gold Beach, OR, for rebuilding the high dock....         200,000
Poughkeepsie, NY, for the development of a pedestrian          1,000,000
 bridge.................................................
Providence Community Action, Providence, RI, for                 700,000
 purchase of a building to provide transitional housing
 for homeless families..................................
Provo City, UT, for a parking facility..................         500,000
Puget Sound Educational Service Dist, Seattle, WA, for         1,000,000
 the construction of the Greenbridge Early Learning
 Center.................................................
Quincy Smelter, Franklin Township, MI, for remediation           300,000
 and preservation.......................................
Randolph County YMCA, IN, for expansion of the Child             500,000
 Care Facility..........................................
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Ponemah, MN, for              300,000
 design, construction, and buildout of a multipurpose
 facility on the Red Lake Indian reservation to provide
 space for the provision of youth and elderly programs..
reStart, Inc., Kansas City, MO, to provide for facility          400,000
 improvements...........................................
Ritchie County Commission, WV, for the completion of the         650,000
 North fork of the Hughes River Watershed Project.......
RurAL CAP, Anchorage, AK, for rural Alaska Head Start            200,000
 facility upgrades, including energy-efficiency
 measures, health/safety improvements, and increased
 activity space.........................................
Rural Learning Center, Howard, SD, for construction of a         200,000
 green energy training center and elimination of
 community blight.......................................
Salishan HOPE IV, Tacoma, WA, for neighborhood                 1,000,000
 rehabilitation and improvement and community investment
San Juan County, UT, for renovations and facility                400,000
 upgrade................................................
Scott County Housing Council, Davenport, IA, for                 400,000
 Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Pool
 in Scott County, Iowa..................................
Second Harvest Food Bank, Muncie, IN, for the renovation         300,000
 of the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central Indiana
Southwest Indian Foundation, Gallup, NM, for the               1,000,000
 Operation Footprint program to construct and place new
 homes for needy Navajo families........................
Southwestern Vermont Council On Aging, VT, for Vermont           400,000
 Senior Centers Renovations and Maintenance.............
Spirit Lake Nation, Fort Totten, ND, for construction of         750,000
 low-income senior housing units........................
St. Michael's School and Nursery, Wilmington, DE, for            300,000
 HVAC replacement in school for low-income child-  ren..
St. Monica's Home, Lincoln, NE, for construction of the          440,000
 new St. Monica's Community Center for low income women
 and their families in need of substance abuse and
 mental health treatment................................
Stone County, MS, for heavy equipment to assist in               200,000
 infrastructure needs across the county.................
Tallahatchie County, MS, for restoration of the                1,000,000
 Tallahatchie County Courthouse.........................
The Houston Food Bank, Houston, TX, for the purchase and         650,000
 renovation of a new building...........................
The Ministry of Caring Inc., Wilmington, DE, for                 500,000
 handicap accessibility to a homeless shelter for women.
Town of Boothbay, ME, for development of visitor and             500,000
 educational facilities and public access waterfront
 trails.................................................
Town of Colmar Manor, MD, for construction of the Colmar         300,000
 Manor Community Center.................................
Town of Milo, ME, for utility and infrastructure                 500,000
 upgrades to the new Eastern Piscataquis Industrial Park
Town of Rockingham, VT, for Rockingham Community                 400,000
 Recreation Center......................................
Town of Warren, Warren, RI, for rehabilitation and               200,000
 revitalization of park infrastructure to serve low-
 income families........................................
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, ND, for the          500,000
 construction of a youth center to serve Native
 Americans on the reservation...........................
Vermont Department of Buildings and Services, VT, for            250,000
 Veterans Monuments.....................................
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Montpelier, VT,        4,000,000
 for projects throughout the State of Vermont to enhance
 affordable housing and community development linked
 with land conservation and historic preservation.......
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VT, for                  400,000
 Vergennes Senior Housing Project.......................
Volunteers of America--Dakotas, Sioux Falls, SD, for             500,000
 construction of a new facility to house a residential
 substance treatment center for women and their children
 and for other services.................................
Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc., Mobile, AL, for         1,400,000
 construction of housing along Alabama's Katrina-
 decimated Gulf Coast...................................
Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Hartford, CT, for            700,000
 waterproofing activities in basement-level storage
 areas..................................................
WECRD, Mountain Home, ID, for planning, design, and              300,000
 construction of an energy efficient, multi-use,
 community facility.....................................
West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Vernonia, OR, for              500,000
 restoration of services................................
Wick Neighbors, Inc. Youngstown, OH, for replacing and           700,000
 improving existing infrastructure around the Wick
 neighborhood in Youngstown, OH to promote economic
 development............................................
Wilmington Housing Authority, Wilmington, DE, for                500,000
 exterior facade repair of fire damage to low-income
 housing................................................
Winrock International, Little Rock, AR, for support of           400,000
 the Winrock International Regional Entrepreneur
 Assistance Program.....................................
Woodward Industrial Foundation, Woodward, OK, for                200,000
 construction of a multi-purpose community campus.......
World Trade Center of St. Louis, MO, for the development       1,000,000
 of a commercialization center to enhance business and
 economic activities....................................
YMCA of Eastern Union County, Elizabeth, NJ, for                 300,000
 renovation of social services facilities...............
YMCA of Pawtucket, Pawtucket, RI, for purchase of                300,000
 equipment to expand and improve the quality and
 quantity of community services for low and moderate
 income families........................................
YWCA of Northwest Georgia, Inc., Marietta, GA, for               500,000
 housing programs and staff which assist women, men and
 children who are survivors of domestic violence and
 sexual assault.........................................
YWCA Seattle-King Co-Snohomish County, Seattle WA, for           400,000
 the improvement of the 3 housing projects acquired
 recently to expand the YWCA Snohomish County Regional
 Housing Network........................................
YWCA, Spokane, WA, for the creation of Youth Development         500,000
 program space complete with fixtures, furnishings and
 equipment..............................................
YWCA, Yakima, WA, for infrastructure improvements to           1,000,000
 Bringing It Home, Central Washington's largest domestic
 violence facility......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The neighborhood initiatives are as follows:

                        NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                      Project name                        recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Charities Housing Services, Yakima, WA, for the        $800,000
 education of Hispanic communities regarding
 homeownership..........................................
Center for Planning and Excellence, LA, for phase II of          200,000
 comprehensive planning for land use, transportation and
 economic development in parishes and municipalities in
 Louisiana..............................................
City of Racine, WI, Redevelopment Authority, for               1,000,000
 demolition of blighted buildings and vacant parcels,
 street beautification and restoration of a station
 platform at the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad depot....
City of Spokane, WA, for homeless rapid rehousing                150,000
 activities.............................................
City of Vancouver, WA, for road and rail system                3,000,000
 improvements to reconnect Vancouver to the Columbia
 River..................................................
City of Waterbury, CT, for a plan to clean polluted and        1,000,000
 blighted properties and market them for suitable
 redevelopment..........................................
Covenant House Alaska Crisis Center, Anchorage, AK, for          350,000
 relocation and expansion...............................
Harbor Homes, Nashua, NH, for two new supportive housing         500,000
 programs for honorably discharged homeless veterans....
Missisippi State University, MS, for a Civic Capacity          1,000,000
 Development Initiative.................................
Nevada Fair Housing Center, Las Vegas, NV, for purchase          850,000
 and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties............
Patrick F. Taylor Foundation, New Orleans, LA, for the           200,000
 acquisition, renovation and construction of affordable
 housing in the Greater New Orleans area................
St. Louis County Economic Council, St. Louis, MO, for            500,000
 the planning and design for the Lemay Community Center.
Tiverton Library Services, Tiverton, RI, for land                500,000
 acquisition to build a new public library..............
Village of Columbus, NM, for the renovation of the             1,000,000
 former Columbus Elementary school building to house a
 multi-purpose community facility.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                      Program costs     guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008..............         $4,500,000       $205,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009.............  .................  .................
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 $1,500,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 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 2009.
    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. To improve rural and non-
entitlement participation in the section 108 Guaranteed 
Program, the Committee directs HUD to provide a report to the 
Committee on Appropriations within 120 days of enactment which 
outlines obstacles, including regulatory barriers, that 
confront non-entitlement jurisdictions in accessing the section 
108 program. The Committee expects the Department to continue 
to provide training and technical assistance through outreach 
and other efforts to rural and non-entitlement communities 
through the section 108 program.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the 
Brownfield Redevelopment program, consistent with the budget 
request. The Committee notes that other Federal appropriations 
are available for the same purpose through the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA]. Communities may also use CDBG funds to 
redevelop Brownfield's sites.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,704,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,966,640,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,966,640,000

                          program description

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,966,640,000 
for the Home Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 
equal to the budget request and $262,640,000 more than the 
comparable level for fiscal year 2008. 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 $5,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $2,500,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 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.
    American Dream Downpayment Initiative.--The Committee 
recommends $10,000,000 for the American Dream Downpayment 
Initiative which is $40,000,000 less than the budget request 
and the same as the fiscal year 2008 level.

                  SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for the Self-Help and 
Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $26,000,000 more than 
the budget request and $6,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 level. The Committee has included $27,000,000 for the 
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized under 
section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996.
    The Committee recommends $35,000,000 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 2007, the 
Local Initiative Support Corporation and the Enterprise 
Community Partners leveraged over $8 for every one Federal 
dollar provided by this program. The Committee provides 
$4,000,000 to carry out capacity building activities as 
authorized under section 6301 through 6305 in Public Law 110-
246.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,585,990,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,636,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,667,000,000

                          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 $1,667,000,000 
for Homeless Assistance Grants for fiscal year 2009. This 
amount is $81,010,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level and $31,000,000 more than the President's request. Of the 
amount appropriated, up to $8,000,000 is for technical 
assistance and data analysis, and not to exceed $2,675,000 may 
be transferred to the 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 bill language requested by 
the President that would set $50,000,000 aside for the 
Samaritan Housing Initiative for chronically homeless 
individuals. HUD already targets funding to the chronically 
homeless, and the Committee believes that increased funding 
should be made available for both homeless families and 
homeless individuals.
    Preventing Homelessness Among the Nation's Veterans.--In 
May of this year, the Committee held a hearing on the issue of 
homeless veterans with officials from the Departments of 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and Veterans Affairs [VA], 
as well as experts from the housing and veteran communities. 
The Committee received testimony on how to meet the needs of 
thousands of veterans that are currently experiencing 
homelessness, such as providing veterans with permanent 
supportive housing.
    The Committee also heard testimony on the importance of 
taking steps to address the needs of veterans that may be at-
risk of homelessness, particularly veterans returning from the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As an official from the VA 
testified at the hearing ``the best strategy with this new 
generation of veterans is to . . . reach them very early.''
    The new generation of veterans is different from previous 
generations in many ways, including an increasing number of 
female veterans, veterans with families, and veterans from the 
National Guard. As such, it is critical that the unique needs 
of these veterans be examined and new approaches be developed 
to serve them better. This should include addressing their 
housing, healthcare and employment and training challenges. 
Preventing homelessness will also require coordination among 
local, State, and Federal agencies, workforce boards, education 
and training institutions, community-based organizations and 
other private or public entities.
    The Committee has included $10,000,000 for HUD to conduct a 
demonstration program and directs HUD to coordinate with the VA 
and the Department of Labor [DOL] to test the effectiveness of 
strategies to prevent veterans from becoming homeless. The 
Committee has directed HUD, in coordination with the VA and 
DOL, to select a limited number of sites in urban and rural 
areas to test and evaluate prevention methods.
    In evaluating sites for selection, the Committee directs 
that selected sites have high rates of veterans that are 
homeless, as well as grantees experienced in coordinating with 
the VA and DOL to help veterans access mainstream services. The 
Secretary is also required to select up to three sites close to 
military installations where service members are transitioning 
from military service into civilian life, in order to reach 
veterans recently returning from service that may be struggling 
in their transition to civilian life. The Secretary must also 
select up to four sites in rural areas to examine the needs of 
veterans that live far from the VA medical centers. Such 
veterans should include National Guard members who are not part 
of traditional military communities.
    The grantees selected must be part of HUD's Continuum of 
Care. The funding provided shall be used to assist veterans, as 
well as any dependent family members, find and maintain 
housing. Assistance may be used for short-term housing 
assistance, including up to 18 months of rental assistance, 
first and last month's rent, back rent or related housing 
assistance. Grantees may also use funding for appropriate 
services for veterans and their families, including, but not 
limited to, child care, family services and case management.
    The Committee understands that the VA will assist selected 
grantees in conducting outreach, referring veterans to 
providers for housing assistance, and providing appropriate 
case management services, similar to the services provided 
under the HUD-VASH program.
    Education, job training and employment services are also 
critical to improving the economic stability of veterans at-
risk of homelessness. The Committee therefore encourages the 
DOL to work with HUD to identify grantees that have experience 
working with the veteran population, and assist grantees in 
helping veterans access mainstream education and job training 
programs.
    The Committee has also included up to $750,000 for an 
evaluation of this demonstration. This evaluation should 
examine: the most effective ways to identify, reach, and assist 
veterans who are at-risk of homelessness or are experiencing 
short-term homelessness; the extent to which services and 
activities meet the needs of veterans experiencing a housing 
crisis and contribute to their longer-term economic stability; 
and the identification of any barriers that limit prevention 
activities.
    Homeless Youth.--Every year, as many as 1.6 million youth 
in the United States experience homelessness. Achieving housing 
stability is critical to helping these youth reach independent 
and productive adulthoods. While various housing models are 
showing promise in assisting homeless youth achieve housing 
stability, more data is needed to determine what practices are 
most successful in meeting the needs of this population. The 
Committee therefore directs the Secretary to conduct an 
evaluation of the housing models that are most effective in 
preventing and ending homelessness for youth aged 16 to 24 
years. In conducting the evaluation, the Secretary shall 
measure the following outcomes: residential stability, 
educational stability and advancement, and employment training, 
placement and retention. The Committee has provided $3,000,000 
for evaluation activities within this account, and directs that 
not less than $500,000 be set aside for this evaluation on the 
housing needs of homeless youth.
    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 requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by 
June 12, 2009. 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 Program


                        HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $735,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     540,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     765,000,000

                          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 $765,000,000 
for the section 202 program. This level is $225,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $30,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 level. The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for 
service coordinators and for the continuation of existing 
congregate service grants; up to $25,000,000 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 $1,600,000 may be transferred to the 
Working Capital Fund.
    The Committee has provided $15,000,000 as requested in the 
budget for a Leverage Financing Demonstration program.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to establish a funding 
allocation for the State of Nevada from the total amount made 
available under section 202.
    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, 2008....................................    $237,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     250,000,000

                          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 $250,000,000 
for the section 811 program. This level is $90,000,000 more 
than the budget request and $13,000,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2008 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 $87,100,000 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 $1,600,000, may be transferred to the Working Capital 
Fund.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to establish a funding 
allocation for the State of Nevada from the total amount made 
available under section 811.
    This is the fifth 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 has provided $10,000,000, as requested in the 
budget, for a Leverage Financing Demonstration program.

                     HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2008\1\.................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      65,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      65,000,000

\1\Funding for this activity was previously provided under the Home 
Investment Partnership Office Partnership account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing Counseling Assistance Program provides 
comprehensive housing counseling services to eligible 
homeowners and tenants through grants to nonprofit 
intermediaries, State government entities, and other local and 
national agencies. Eligible counseling activities include pre- 
and post-purchase education, personal financial management, 
reverse mortgage product education, foreclosure/mitigation, and 
rental counseling.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the Housing 
Counseling Assistance program, which is the same as the budget 
request and $15,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. 
Funding for this activity was previously provided under the 
Home Investment Partnership Program account.

                    OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $27,600,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      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 which is the 
same as the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2008 
level.

                            RENT SUPPLEMENT

                              (RESCISSION)

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $37,600,000 for 
section 236 payments to State-aided, non-insured projects which 
is $10,000,000 more than the budget request and the same as the 
2008 enacted level.

                         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, 2008....................................     $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      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 of which $10,600,000 is 
expected to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the 
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund account and not more than 
$5,400,000 shall be available from the general fund. The total 
amount recommended is the same as the budget request and the 
same as the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its 
proposed fiscal year 2009 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans    contract expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008................................         $50,000,000    $185,000,000,000         $77,400,000
Budget estimate, 2009...............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000         116,000,000
Committee recommendation............................          50,000,000     185,000,000,000         140,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Administrative expenses for MMI are funded within the Office of Housing.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                        direct loans     guaranteed loans    contract expenses    Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008...............        $50,000,000     $45,000,000,000         $78,111,000        $8,600,000
Budget estimate, 2009..............         50,000,000      35,000,000,000          47,871,000         8,600,000
Committee recommendation...........         50,000,000      45,000,000,000          47,871,000         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 $140,000,000 for administrative 
contract expenses of which up to $70,794,000 may be transferred 
to the Working Capital Fund to be used solely for development 
and maintenance of FHA information technology systems. The 
amount provided for administrative expenses is $24,000,000 more 
than the President's request.
    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 $47,871,000 for administrative contract expenses.
    The Committee directs HUD to continue direct loan programs 
in 2009 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.
    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.
    The Committee has continued to warn HUD and FHA that 
predatory lending is a widespread problem affecting moderate 
and low-income borrowers across the Nation. These activities 
have contributed to the housing crisis we currently face. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report to the 
Committee on Appropriations within 90 days on the proper role 
of HUD, including identifying the proper agencies and 
authorities, to establish an Office of Predatory Lending. This 
Office, working in conjunction with the Department of Justice, 
would take on the responsibility to establish rules and 
requirements to protect the American pubic from fraud and 
abuse.

                Government National Mortgage Association


guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2009:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

                          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 
the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2008 level.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $51,440,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      54,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,624,000

                          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 $59,624,000 for research, 
technology and community development activities in fiscal year 
2009. This level is $4,924,000 more than the budget request and 
$8,184,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level. Within the 
amounts provided, $2,000,000 shall be made available to conduct 
a comprehensive study to be managed by the Office of Policy 
Development and Research to analyze the total costs necessary 
to administer the tenant-based voucher program. This study 
should consider all requirements such as targeting, housing 
quality and rent reasonableness and should analyze whether 
there are cost differentials based on the number of vouchers 
administered, type of area served, rental costs, population 
serves and other factors as determined by the Secretary. The 
Committee recommends $23,000,000 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 provides $5,000,000 for the Secretary to 
carry out a national competitive program to advance technology 
housing construction and building material to benefit the 
American public. Of the $5,0000,000 made available for this 
purpose, up to $2,000,000 may be used to develop technology and 
materials designed to benefit disaster prone areas.
    In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's 
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, 
the Office of Policy Development and Research is denied 
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by 
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      51,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,000,000

                          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 $56,000,000, of which 
$27,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and $28,500,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program 
[FHIP]. The total is $5,000,000 more than the budget request 
and $6,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 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 is concerned of 
the fact that, as the housing crisis continues, consumer 
complaints against landlords, mortgage brokers and real estate 
agents have increased. Recent reports show that, as the number 
of complaints to HUD continues to rise, the number of 
complaints determined to have merit and accepted by HUD for 
further investigation continue to decline. This record raises 
questions as to whether cases are being routinely dismissed by 
HUD without sufficient review.
    The following chart illustrates the number of housing 
discrimination complaints received by HUD and the number of 
those complaints that are forwarded for further investigation. 
If HUD determines that a complaint has merit, HUD ``charges'' 
the case. The decline in ``charged cases'' since 2001 is 
stark--in 2007, HUD charged only 1.2 percent of total 
complaints processed which is down from 4.6 percent charged in 
2001.




    In 2007, there were 27,023 complaints of housing 
discrimination. The number of complaints filed, however, still 
represents less than 1 percent of the annual incidence of 
discrimination. The total number of complaints has been fairly 
consistent over the past 5 years. Private fair housing 
organizations continue to process more than 60 percent of the 
complaints.




    Combating Discrimination, Predatory Lending and Mortgage 
Rescue Scams.--The Committee recommends an increase of 
$4,500,000 more than the 2008 enacted level. Within the 
increased funds provided, $2,000,000 shall be used solely to 
assist in the protection of the American public from mortgage 
rescue scams. These funds shall be used to investigate, test 
and perform outreach and educational activities in addressing 
mortgage rescue scams.
    The demand for FHIP funding has grown as nonprofit fair 
housing organizations continue to work to meet the needs of 
consumers impacted by the home mortgage crisis. The Committee 
directs HUD to ensure that all funds appropriated to FHIP are 
directed to educational and enforcement activities, including 
an annual national media campaign, as authorized by section 561 
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. The 
Committee does not provide funding or authorize HUD to use 
funds provided to FHIP to administer the Housing Discrimination 
Study as proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee provides $500,000 to allow HUD to continue 
the creation and promotion of translated materials that support 
the assistance of persons with limited English proficiency.

            Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $145,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     116,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     145,000,000

                          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 $145,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2009. 
This amount is $29,000,000 more than the budget request and the 
same as the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Of this amount, HUD 
may use up to $14,600,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative 
under which HUD conducts a number of activities designed to 
identify and address housing-related illnesses. The Committee 
includes bill language requiring $250,000 of the total amount 
made available to the Lead Hazard Reduction Program to be used 
in conducting communications and outreach activities to 
potential applicants of the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration 
Grant program.
    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.

                     Management and Administration


                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $155,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     224,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000

                          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 $200,000,000 for the Working 
Capital Fund for fiscal year 2008. These funds are $24,000,0000 
less than the budget request and $45,000,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2008 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.
    The Committee notes that the Working Capital Fund is also 
supported with additional funding provided though the transfer 
of direct appropriated program funds within 10 separate HUD 
accounts. The Committee recommends a total transfer level to 
the Working Capital Fund of $89,300,000, which is the same as 
the budget request and $9,762,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 level.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $112,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     115,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     115,000,000

                          program description

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is the same as the budget 
request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 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.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $66,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      66,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      66,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $66,600,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the 
budget request and $600,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 
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 its fiscal 
year 2010 budget justifications according to congressional 
requirements.
    Sec. 212. 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. 213. 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. 214. This section provides allocation requirements for 
Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 
Grant program.
    Sec. 215. This section exempts GNMA from certain 
requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
    Sec. 216. This section reforms certain section 8 rent 
calculations as to athletic scholarships.
    Sec. 217. This section expands the availability of Home 
Equity Conversion Mortgages during 2009.
    Sec. 218. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 
assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
    Sec. 219. This section extends the HOPE VI program until 
September 30, 2009.
    Sec. 220. The section allows public housing authorities 
with less than 400 units the option to be exempt from 
management requirements in the operating fund rule.
    Sec. 221. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to 
the Appropriations Committees on the use of sole source 
contracting by HUD.
    Sec. 222. This section clarifies the use of the 108 loan 
guaranteed program for non-entitlement communities.
    Sec. 223. This section requires HUD to report 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. 224. This section requires allotment holders to meet 
certain criteria of the CFO.
    Sec. 225. This section limits attorney fees.
    Sec. 226. This section rescinds a portion of unusable 
balances.
    Sec. 227. This section expands service coordinators to 
other HUD assisted housing.
    Sec. 228. This section modifies the HOME technical 
assistance program and extends the authorization of the HOME 
program to 2011.
    Sec. 229. The section modifies the NOFA process to include 
the Internet.
    Sec. 230. This section allows technical assistance under 
section 514(f)(3).
    Sec. 231. This section increases the FHA single-family loan 
limits.
    Sec. 232. This section would allow refinancing of certain 
section 202 loans.
    Sec. 233. The section makes reforms to the Federal Surplus 
Property Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 
Act.
    Sec. 234. This section extends flexibility previously 
granted to public housing agencies in the most heavily impacted 
areas from damages incurred by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.
    Sec. 235. This section increases the aggregate number of 
Moving-to-Work agencies by three public housing agencies.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $6,150,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       6,447,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,550,000

                          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 $6,550,000 for the operations of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 
This level of funding is $400,000 more than the fiscal year 
2008 enacted level and $103,000 more than the President's 
request. The Committee has included additional funding over the 
budget request to cover rent increases that the Access Board 
will assume in fiscal year 2009. Absent this increase, the 
Board would be forced to cut funding that supports the 
development of guidelines for the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, including cost assessments of proposed and final rules.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $22,072,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      23,953,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,949,000

                          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 $23,949,000 for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 
2009. This amount is $4,000 less than the budget request and 
$1,877,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $84,499,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      87,891,000
Committee recommendation................................      91,000,000

                          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 $91,000,000 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, which is $3,109,000 more than the 
budget request and $6,501,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 
enacted level. Bill language is including that allows NTSB to 
reimburse the DOT Inspector General up to $100,000 for costs 
associated with audits and investigations. The bill also 
rescinds $671,275 in funding provided in Public Law 106-246 for 
investigations that have been completed.
    The NTSB conducts investigations on transportation 
accidents in order to formulate recommendations that will 
improve transportation safety. These investigations require 
experienced personnel with expertise in various areas of 
transportation. In fiscal year 2005, the agency experienced 
significant reductions in staff. As a result, the agency 
continues to endure staffing shortages in critical 
investigative, engineering and other specialized positions that 
are elemental to the agency's ability to conduct investigations 
and research. The Committee recommends an increase of 
$2,109,000 over the budget request to hire at least 11 
additional personnel in the most critical safety areas of 
highways, pipelines, railroads, research and engineering and 
aviation.
    Cost Accounting System.--The Committee is aware that the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] has recommended that, in 
order to improve its processes and operations, the NTSB must 
develop a cost-accounting system. This system would provide the 
agency a better ability to track personnel costs and outputs. 
The Committee agrees with this recommendation, and has provided 
the agency with $1,000,000 over the budget request to support 
the development and implementation of this system.
    NTSB Academy.--As the Committee noted last year, the NTSB 
entered into an illegal multi-year lease for its new training 
facility without sufficient funding to cover the cost of the 
lease. As a result, the NTSB had to report an Anti-Deficiency 
Act violation in 2003. The Academy proved to be a drain on the 
Academy's finances, diverting funding from important NTSB 
activities.
    The Committee has been monitoring the actions the NTSB is 
taking to move the training center toward self-sufficiency. The 
Congress required the NTSB to submit a business plan to 
accomplish that goal. The plan proposed awarding a contract to 
an outside entity that would partner with the agency in running 
the facility. Unfortunately, there was a lack of interest by 
outside entities in such an arrangement, and such a contract 
was never awarded.
    Since this plan could not be carried out, the agency sought 
alternative means of offsetting the costs of operating the 
facility. The agency was successful in leasing some of the 
facility space to other agencies, thereby reducing some of the 
financial burden of operating the facility. The Committee 
directs the agency to continue to seek additional opportunities 
to lease out, or otherwise generate revenue from the facility, 
so that the agency can appropriately focus its resources on the 
important investigative work that is central to the agency's 
mission.
    The Committee has once again included language that allows 
the agency to continue to make payments on the lease with the 
funding the agency is provided. This authority is granted for 
fiscal year 2009 only. In addition, the Committee directs the 
agency to submit detailed information on the costs associated 
with the facility, as well as revenue the agency expects the 
facility to generate as part of the fiscal year 2010 budget 
request.
    Improvement in Closing Major Investigations.--The Committee 
notes that NTSB has greatly reduced the amount of time it takes 
to complete major investigations. Between 2006 and 2007, the 
NTSB decreased the time it took to complete major 
investigations by over 100 days. The Committee applauds the 
NTSB's efforts and expects the agency to continue to work on 
completing major investigations as expeditiously as possible, 
in order to quickly advance transportation safety 
recommendations.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $299,800,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     156,000,000

                          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 $156,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal year 2009. This 
amount is $6,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$143,800,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 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.
    Housing Counseling Assistance.--The Committee has included 
$25,000,000, as requested, to continue the National Foreclosure 
Mitigation Counseling Program initiated by Congress in fiscal 
year 2008. Millions of homeowners are facing the prospect of 
foreclosure, and unfortunately, many of them aren't aware of 
the options available to help them avoid losing their homes. 
The funding provided by Congress last year is currently 
assisting housing counselors serve thousands of homeowners that 
are facing the fallout from the subprime crisis.
    As required by Congress, NRC awarded funding to housing 
counseling providers within 60 days of enactment of the fiscal 
year 2008 act. Over $130,000,000 in grants were awarded to 130 
State housing finance agencies, HUD-approved counseling 
intermediaries, and NeighborWorks organizations in States and 
areas with the highest rates of foreclosure or delinquency. 
This provided a rapid infusion of resources to counselors 
struggling to meet the demand for counseling assistance. NRC 
also used funding to conduct training sessions in order to 
increase foreclosure counseling capacity.
    The Committee notes that both the American Housing Rescue 
and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 as passed by the House 
of Representatives, and the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 
as passed by the Senate include additional funding to support 
the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program. The 
Committee believes that housing counseling is a critical 
component of any foreclosure prevention effort, and supports 
the inclusion of counseling funding in these acts.
    Rescue Scam Prevention.--The Committee is concerned by 
reports of the increasing number of rescue scams associated 
with the subprime housing crisis. Homeowners struggling to make 
mortgage payments are being enticed into fraudulent or 
suspicious deals in an attempt to avoid losing their homes. In 
the end, though, many lose their money, their homes, or both. 
The Committee wants to make homeowners that may be targeted for 
these scams aware that there are qualified counselors and 
legitimate financing options available to help them address 
their situation. As such, the Committee has provided the NRC 
with $6,000,000 to develop a public education and outreach 
campaign to specifically combat rescue scams and educate 
mortgage consumers who may be victimized by such scams about 
their options. The Committee expects that this funding will be 
used for campaign development, production, and outreach 
activities, including direct mailings. NRC may also use funding 
to develop appropriate tools that will enable consumers to 
identify rescue scams for what they are, conduct self-
assessments, and provide them with the information necessary to 
help them avoid rescue scams. The Committee further directs the 
NRC to develop messages and target populations and communities 
most at-risk for rescue scams. Such efforts may include 
partnering with appropriate organizations to serve 
traditionally hard-to-reach consumers.
    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, 2008....................................      $2,150,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       2,660,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,660,000

                          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 $2,660,000 for 
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. 
This amount is $510,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted 
level and equal to 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, 2012.
    Homeless Veterans.--On May 1, 2008, the Committee held a 
hearing on the issue of homeless veterans, and heard testimony 
about the importance of better coordination among Federal 
agencies. It is clear that the problems associated with 
homeless veterans are not simply related to housing. Instead, 
there is a complex set of challenges that veterans face when 
they are at risk of becoming homeless, and those challenges 
require the engagement of various Federal agencies. These 
agencies must create a better transition for service members 
leaving military service and returning to civilian life in 
order to prevent homelessness. In addition, the agencies must 
address the needs of the more than 300,000 veterans that 
already face homelessness every year.
    The ICH must play a role in facilitating the coordination 
of the various Federal agencies to address the issue of 
homelessness among our Nation's veterans. To that end, the ICH 
is directed to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent and end 
homelessness among our Nation's veterans. In developing this 
plan, the Chair of the ICH, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
is expected to include all members of the ICH, and at a minimum 
must engage ICH members from: the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of 
Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services. This 
plan shall include specific actions that each agency will take 
to better serve our Nation's veterans. The ICH is directed to 
update the Committee on its efforts with an interim report due 
to the Committee 90 days after the enactment of this act, and 
to provide a final report to the Committee 180 days after the 
enactment of this act.
    Staffing.--Last year, the Committee provided ICH with funds 
to hire additional personnel. The Committee understands that as 
a result of the ICH's limited authorization, the Council was 
hindered in its ability to provide prospective staff with 
appropriate benefits. The bill therefore includes a provision 
that extends the authorization of ICH through 2012, as 
requested by the President and the Committee expects the ICH to 
move expeditiously to hire the necessary staff. The Committee 
reiterates its direction that the special supervisor position 
be used to improve Federal coordination and develop policies to 
prevent and end homelessness in the United States.
    Travel.--The Committee continues to be concerned by the 
extensive travel of the Council's Executive Director. The 
Committee believes that more time must be spent working to 
improve Federal policies, and coordinating the efforts of 
Federal agencies. Therefore, the travel budget for the 
Executive Director is again limited to $50,000.
    The Committee is also concerned about the international 
travel of the Executive Director. Therefore bill language has 
been included that limits salaries and benefits of any employee 
of the ICH that spends more than 20 days outside of the United 
States while not on annual leave.

                                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 2009:

                 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 10, 2008, 
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3261) 
making appropriations for the Departments of of Transportation 
and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and authorized the 
chairman of the Committee or the chairman of the subcommittee 
to offer the text of the Senate bill as a Committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to the House companion measure, 
with the bill subject to amendment and subject to the budget 
allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0, 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. 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 12--BANKS AND BANKING


                      CHAPTER 13--NATIONAL HOUSING


                   SUBCHAPTER II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE


Sec. 1709. Insurance of mortgages

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Eligibility for insurance; mortgage limits

    To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage 
shall comply with the following:
            (1) * * *
            (2) Involve a principal obligation (including such 
        initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and 
        other fees as the Secretary shall approve) in an amount 
        not to exceed the lesser of--
                    [(A) not to exceed the lesser of--
                            [(i) in the case of a 1-family 
                        residence, 95 percent of the median 1-
                        family house price in the area, as 
                        determined by the Secretary; in the 
                        case of a 2-family residence, 107 
                        percent of such median price; in the 
                        case of a 3-family residence, 130 
                        percent of such median price; or in the 
                        case of a 4-family residence, 150 
                        percent of such median price; or
                            [(ii) 87 percent of the dollar 
                        amount limitation determined under 
                        section 1454(a)(2) of this title for a 
                        residence of the applicable size; 
                        except that the dollar amount 
                        limitation in effect for any area under 
                        this subparagraph may not be less than 
                        the greater of the dollar amount 
                        limitation in effect under this section 
                        for the area on October 21, 1998, or 48 
                        percent of the dollar limitation 
                        determined under section 1454(a)(2) of 
                        this title for a residence of the 
                        applicable size; and
                    [(B) not to exceed an amount equal to the 
                sum of--
                            [(i) the amount of the mortgage 
                        insurance premium paid at the time the 
                        mortgage is insured; and
                            [(ii) in the case of--
                                    [(I) a mortgage for a 
                                property with an appraised 
                                value equal to or less than 
                                $50,000, 98.75 percent of the 
                                appraised value of the 
                                property;
                                    [(II) a mortgage for a 
                                property with an appraised 
                                value in excess of $50,000 but 
                                not in excess of $125,000, 
                                97.65 percent of the appraised 
                                value of the property;
                                    [(III) a mortgage for a 
                                property with an appraised 
                                value in excess of $125,000, 
                                97.15 percent of the appraised 
                                value of the property; or
                                    [(IV) notwithstanding 
                                subclauses (II) and (III), a 
                                mortgage for a property with an 
                                appraised value in excess of 
                                $50,000 that is located in an 
                                area of the State for which the 
                                average closing cost exceeds 
                                2.10 percent of the average, 
                                for the State, of the sale 
                                price of properties located in 
                                the State for which mortgages 
                                have been executed, 97.75 
                                percent of the appraised value 
                                of the property.]
                    (A)(i) in the case of a 1-family residence, 
                the median 1-family house price in the area, as 
                determined by the Secretary; and in the case of 
                a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence, the percentage 
                of such median price that bears the same ratio 
                to such median price as the dollar amount 
                limitation in effect under section 305(a)(2) of 
                the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act 
                (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)) for a 2-, 3-, or 4-
                family residence, respectively, bears to the 
                dollar amount limitation in effect under such 
                section for a 1-family residence; or
                    (ii) the dollar amount limitation 
                determined under such section 305(a)(2) for a 
                residence of the applicable size; except that 
                the dollar amount limitation in effect for any 
                area under this subparagraph may not be less 
                than the greater of--
                            (I) the dollar amount limitation in 
                        effect under this section for the area 
                        on October 21, 1998, or
                            (II) 65 percent of the dollar 
                        limitation determined under such 
                        section 305(a)(2) for a residence of 
                        the applicable size; and
                    (B) not to exceed the appraised value of 
                the property, plus any initial service charges, 
                appraisal, inspection and other fees in 
                connection with the mortgage as approved by the 
                Secretary.

    For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ``area'' 
means a metropolitan statistical area as established by the 
Office of Management and Budget or in the case of a geographic 
region not encompassed within a metropolitan statistical area 
established by the Office of Management and Budget, such other 
geographic region as determined by the Secretary; and the 
median 1-family house price for an area shall be equal to the 
median 1-family house price of the county within the area that 
has the highest such median price. [For purposes of this 
paragraph, the term ``average closing cost'' means, with 
respect to a State, the average, for mortgages executed for 
properties that are located within the State, of the total 
amounts (as determined by the Secretary) of initial service 
charges, appraisal, inspection, and other fees (as the 
Secretary shall approve) that are paid in connection with such 
mortgages.] Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section, in any case where the dwelling is not approved for 
mortgage insurance prior to the beginning of construction, such 
mortgage shall not exceed 90 per centum of the entire appraised 
value of the property as of the date the mortgage is accepted 
for insurance, unless (i) the dwelling was completed more than 
one year prior to the application for mortgage insurance, or 
(ii) the dwelling was approved for guaranty, insurance, or a 
direct loan under chapter 37 of title 38 prior to the beginning 
of construction, or (iii) the dwelling is covered by a consumer 
protection or warranty plan acceptable to the Secretary and 
satisfies all requirements which would have been applicable if 
such dwelling had been approved for mortgage insurance prior to 
the beginning of construction. As used herein, the term 
``veteran'' means any person who served on active duty in the 
armed forces of the United States for a period of not less than 
ninety days (or is certified by the Secretary of Defense as 
having performed extra-hazardous service), and who was 
discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than 
dishonorable, except that persons enlisting in the armed forces 
after September 7, 1980, or entering active duty after October 
16, 1981, shall have their eligibility determined in accordance 
with section 5303A(d) of title 38. Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this paragraph, the amount which may be insured 
under this section may be increased by up to 20 percent if such 
increase is necessary to account for the increased cost of the 
residence due to the installation of a solar energy system (as 
defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of section 
1703(a) of this title) therein.
    [Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the 
Secretary may not insure, or enter into a commitment to insure, 
a mortgage under this section that is executed by a first-time 
homebuyer and that involves a principal obligation (including 
such initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and other 
fees as the Secretary shall approve) in excess of 97 percent of 
the appraised value of the property unless the mortgagor has 
completed a program of counseling with respect to the 
responsibilities and financial management involved in 
homeownership that is approved by the Secretary; except that 
the Secretary may, in the discretion of the Secretary, waive 
the applicability of this requirement.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                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] 
        2009.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(o) Sunset

    No assistance may be provided under this section after 
[September 30, 2007] September 30, 2009.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                CHAPTER 130--NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING


            SUBCHAPTER II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING


                 Part B--Community Housing Partnership


Sec. 12773. Housing education and organizational support

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(d) Limitations

    Contracts under this section with any one contractor for a 
fiscal year may not--
            (1) exceed [20] 25 percent of the amount 
        appropriated for this section for such fiscal year; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(e) Single-State contractors

    Not less than [40] 25 percent of the funds made available 
for this section in an appropriations Act in any fiscal year 
shall be made available for eligible contractors that have 
worked primarily in one State. The Secretary shall provide 
assistance under this section, to the extent applications are 
submitted and approved, to contractors in each of the 
geographic regions having a regional office of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Part C--Other Support for State and Local Housing Strategies


Sec. 12783. Conditions of contracts

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(b) Contract terms

    Contracts under this part shall be for not more than 3 
years and shall provide not more than 20 percent of the 
operating budget of the contracting organization in any one 
year. Within any fiscal year, contracts with any one 
organization may not be entered into for a total of more than 
[20] 40 percent of the funds appropriated under this part in 
that fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Part E--Other Assistance


Sec. 12821. Downpayment assistance initiative

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(i) Sunset

    The Secretary shall have no authority to make grants under 
this [Act after December 31, 2007] section after December 31, 
2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 CHAPTER 135--RESIDENCY AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
                                HOUSING


                   SUBCHAPTER IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 13641. Definitions

    For purposes of this title:\1\

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (2) Federally assisted housing

            The terms ``federally assisted housing'' and 
        ``project'' mean--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (F) housing insured, assisted, or held by 
                the Secretary or a State or State agency under 
                section 1715z-1 of title 12; [and]
                    (G) housing constructed or substantially 
                rehabilitated pursuant to assistance provided 
                under section 8(b)(2) of the United States 
                Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. 1437f(b)(2)], as 
                in effect before October 1, 1983, that is 
                assisted under a contract for assistance under 
                such section[.]; and
                    (H) housing that is assisted under section 
                811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez Affording Housing 
                Act (42 U.S.C. 8013).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           TITLE 46--SHIPPING


                    PART B--MERCHANT MARINE SERVICE


CHAPTER 515--STATE MARITIME ACADEMY SUPPORT PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 51509. Student incentive payment agreements

    (a) * * *
    (b) Payments.--Payments under an agreement under this 
section shall be equal to [$4,000] $8,000 each academic year 
and be paid, as prescribed by the Secretary, while the 
individual is attending the academy. The payments shall be used 
for uniforms, tuition, books, and subsistence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        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] 2009, and may extend through December 
        31, [2006] 2009, 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] 2009, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 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, [2008] 2012.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000, PUBLIC LAW 
                                106-569


         TITLE VIII--HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED FAMILIES


  Subtitle A--Refinancing for Section 202 Supportive Housing for the 
                                Elderly


SEC. 811. PREPAYMENT AND REFINANCING.

    (a) Approval of Prepayment of Debt.--Upon request of the 
project sponsor of a project assisted with a loan under 
section202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (as in effect before the 
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
Act), for which the Secretary's consent to prepayment is 
required, the Secretary shall approve the prepayment of any 
indebtedness to the Secretary relating to any remaining 
principal and interest under the loan as part of a prepayment 
plan under which--
            (1) the project sponsor agrees to operate the 
        project until the maturity date of the original loan 
        under terms at least as advantageous to existing and 
        future tenants as the terms required by the original 
        loan agreement or any project-based rental assistance 
        payments contract under section 8 of the United States 
        Housing Act of 1937 (or any other project-based rental 
        housing assistance programs of the Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development, including the rent 
        supplement program under section 101 of the Housing and 
        Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s)) 
        [relating to the project; and] any successor project-
        based rental assistance program, relating to the 
        project, except that if, such project-based rental 
        assistance is no longer available to the project as a 
        result of insufficient amounts of appropriated funds 
        for such purpose, or is no longer available on terms 
        that would provide the project with income equivalent 
        to the project-based rental assistance, the project-
        based rental assistance contract shall be deemed 
        terminated, including all obligations and restrictions 
        thereunder, and the project owner may charge tenants 
        rent sufficient for the project owner to meet debt 
        service payments and operating cost requirements 
        approved by the Secretary. Such contract termination 
        shall be an eligibility event for purposes of section 
        8(t) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
        U.S.C. 1437f(t)) and the tenants of such project shall 
        be eligible for enhanced vouchers in accordance with 
        such section; and
            (2) the prepayment may involve refinancing of the 
        loan if such refinancing results in [a lower interest 
        rate on the principal of the loan for the project and 
        in reductions in debt service related to such loan]
                    (A) a lower interest rate on the principal 
                of the loan for the project and in reductions 
                in debt service related to such loan, or
                    (B) a transaction in which the project 
                owner will address the physical needs of the 
                project. Any approved funding must meet a cost 
                benefit analysis, as established by the 
                Secretary, that the benefit of the transaction 
                outweighs the cost of the transaction.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008, PUBLIC LAW 110-161


DIVISION K--TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008


                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT


                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    For the emergency shelter grants program as authorized 
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act, as amended; the supportive housing program as 
authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; the 
section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room occupancy program 
as authorized under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
amended, to assist homeless individuals pursuant to section 441 
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter 
plus care program as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of 
such Act, $1,585,990,000, of which $1,580,990,000 shall remain 
available until September 30, 2010, and of which $5,000,000 
shall remain available until expended for rehabilitation 
projects with ten-year grant terms: Provided, That of the 
amounts provided, $25,000,000 shall be set aside to conduct a 
demonstration program for the rapid re-housing of homeless 
families: Provided further, That of amounts made available in 
the preceding proviso, not to exceed $1,250,000 may be used to 
conduct an evaluation of this demonstration program: Provided 
further, That funding made available for this demonstration 
program shall be used by the Secretary, expressly for the 
purposes of providing housing and services to homeless families 
in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the rapid re-housing 
approach in addressing the needs of homeless families: Provided 
further, That the Secretary may renew grants made under this 
demonstration program and may treat such original grants and 
any such renewal grants as if these grants were made under the 
supportive housing program: Provided further, That not less 
than 30 percent of funds made available, excluding amounts 
provided for renewals under the shelter plus care program, 
shall be used for permanent housing for individuals and 
families: Provided further, That all funds awarded for services 
shall be matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee: 
Provided further, That the Secretary shall renew on an annual 
basis expiring contracts or amendments to contracts funded 
under the shelter plus care program if the program is 
determined to be needed under the applicable continuum of care 
and meets appropriate program requirements and financial 
standards, as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, 
That all awards of assistance under this heading shall be 
required to coordinate and integrate homeless programs with 
other mainstream health, social services, and employment 
programs for which homeless populations may be eligible, 
including Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Food Stamps, and 
services funding through the Mental Health and Substance Abuse 
Block Grant, Workforce Investment Act, and the Welfare-to-Work 
grant program: Provided further, That up to $8,000,000 of the 
funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
the national homeless data analysis project and technical 
assistance: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,475,000 of 
the funds appropriated under this heading may be transferred to 
the Working Capital Fund: Provided further, That all balances 
for Shelter Plus Care renewals previously funded from the 
Shelter Plus Care Renewal account and transferred to this 
account shall be available, if recaptured, for Shelter Plus 
Care renewals in fiscal year 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        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 2009: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and
 Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory...............................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Discretionary...........................................       53,325       53,325      115,148   \1\114,199
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2009....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\44,315
    2010....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       32,984
    2011....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       14,777
    2012....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        6,661
    2013 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        8,265
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       26,268           NA       27,864
 2009.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

         DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    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.
    As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the term ``congressional directed spending item'' 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 item, a Member is required to provide a 
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's 
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such 
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are 
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee 
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.Senate.gov/Senators.cfm).
    Following is a list of congressionally directed spending 
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this 
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a 
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so 
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this 
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

                                                                             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
                                                                          TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Account                                                            Project                                                 Funding                       Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Improvement Program............  Akutan, AK.................................................................................        $1,250,000  Senators Stevens, Murkowski
Airport Improvement Program............  Battle Creek Unlimited, MI.................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Stabenow, Levin
Airport Improvement Program............  Burlington International, VT...............................................................         1,000,000  Senator Leahy
Airport Improvement Program............  Chippewa Valley Regional, WI...............................................................         1,000,000  Senator Kohl
Airport Improvement Program............  Clinton Memorial, MO.......................................................................           500,000  Senator Bond
Airport Improvement Program............  Dekalb Taylor Municipal, IL................................................................           300,000  Senator Durbin
Airport Improvement Program............  Golden Triangle Regional, MS...............................................................         1,500,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Airport Improvement Program............  Grand Forks International, ND..............................................................           300,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
Airport Improvement Program............  Gulfport-Biloxi International, MS..........................................................         2,000,000  Senator Cochran
Airport Improvement Program............  Jackson-Evers International, MS............................................................         1,500,000  Senator Cochran
Airport Improvement Program............  Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International, MI...................................................         1,700,000  Senators Stabenow, Levin
Airport Improvement Program............  Louisville International-Standiford Field, KY..............................................         1,000,000  Senator McConnell
Airport Improvement Program............  Mobile Regional, AL........................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Shelby, Sessions
Airport Improvement Program............  Mt. Washington Regional, NH................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Sununu
Airport Improvement Program............  Nashville International, TN................................................................           750,000  Senators Alexander, Corker
Airport Improvement Program............  Peoria Regional, IL........................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Durbin
Airport Improvement Program............  Philadelphia International, PA.............................................................         2,500,000  Senators Specter, Casey
Airport Improvement Program............  Piedmont Triad International, NC...........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Burr
Airport Improvement Program............  Rowan County, NC...........................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Dole
Airport Improvement Program............  San Marcos Municipal, TX...................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
Airport Improvement Program............  Sloulin Field International, ND............................................................         2,000,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
Airport Improvement Program............  Springfield-Branson National, MO...........................................................         2,750,000  Senator Bond
Airport Improvement Program............  Tunica Municipal, MS.......................................................................           750,000  Senator Cochran
Airport Improvement Program............  West Virginia Statewide, WV................................................................         4,500,000  Senator Byrd
Alternatives Analysis..................  Aberdeen MARC Rail Storage Yard, MD........................................................           500,000  Senator Cardin
Alternatives Analysis..................  Coast Transit Alternatives Analysis, MS....................................................         1,200,000  Senator Cochran
Alternatives Analysis..................  MARTA I-20 East Transit Corridor, GA.......................................................           500,000  Senator Chambliss
Alternatives Analysis..................  Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania PasSenatorer Rail Project, PA..................         1,000,000  Senator Specter
Alternatives Analysis..................  Overland Park/Metcalf Transit Study, KS....................................................           700,000  Senator Brownback
Alternatives Analysis..................  West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Project, NY.........................................         2,000,000  Senator Schumer
Appalachian Highway Development System.  Corridor H, WV.............................................................................        10,000,000  Senator Byrd
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Abilene Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, TX................................................           480,000  Senators Cornyn, Hutchison
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Addison County Transit Resources Facilities, Buses, and Equipment, VT......................         1,000,000  Senator Leahy
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Alabama Senior Transportation Program, AL..................................................         1,000,000  Senator Shelby
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Albuquerque Transit Facility Rehabilitation, City of Albuquerque, NM.......................           150,000  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Athens-Clarke County Transit, Bus Procurement, GA..........................................         1,400,000  Senators Isakson, Chambliss
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE..........................................           500,000  Senator Carper, Biden
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Baldwin County Bus and Bus Facilities Project, AL..........................................         1,000,000  Senator Shelby
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Ben Franklin Transit Maintenance Facility Construction, WA.................................         1,350,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Bloomfield Intermodal Improvements, NJ.....................................................         2,000,000  Senators Menendez, Lautenberg
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT............................................         3,000,000  Senators Dodd, Lieberman
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Oklahoma City Bus Replacement, OK..........................................................         1,400,000  Senator Inhofe
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Capital Metro Bus and Bus Facilities Improvements, TX......................................           500,000  Senators Cornyn, Hutchison
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  CATA Bus and Bus Facilities, Lansing, MI...................................................         2,000,000  Senators Levin, Stabenow
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, MN.........................................................         1,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Central City Intermodal Transfer Terminal, NV..............................................         1,000,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  City of Detroit Fare Collection System, Bus Upgrades, MI...................................         1,000,000  Senators Stabenow, Levin
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  City of Moultrie Intermodal Facility, GA...................................................           500,000  Senators Chambliss, Isakson
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA....................................................           302,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Deerfield Valley Transit Association Buses, Facilities, and Equipment, VT..................         2,000,000  Senator Leahy
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Design and Construction of an Intermodal Transportation Center for Los Lunas, NM...........         1,000,000  Senator Bingaman
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal Facility, Dubuque, IA....................           250,000  Senator Harkin
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  East Tennessee Human Resources Agency Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles, TN...................         1,000,000  Senators Corker, Alexander
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Enumclaw Welcome Center Intermodal Transit Facility, WA....................................         1,500,000  Senator Murray
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA....................................................         1,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Frankfort Transit, KY......................................................................         1,000,000  Senator McConnell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Goldsboro Union Depot, NC..................................................................           500,000  Senator Dole
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Grant Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA......................................................           448,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Greater Minnesota Transit Capital, MN......................................................         3,000,000  Senator Coleman
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Bus Replacement, VA................................         1,000,000  Senators Warner, Webb
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Greensboro Multimodal Facility, NC.........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Dole
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Harrison County Multi-Modal Facilities, MS.................................................         3,000,000  Senator Wicker
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  HART Bus Rapid Transit Project, FL.........................................................         2,000,000  Senators Martinez, Bill Nelson
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility, OR..................................................         3,000,000  Senators Smith, Wyden
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Idaho Transit Coalition Buses and Bus Facilities, ID.......................................         2,500,000  Senators Crapo, Craig
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Intercity Transit Intermodal Facility Project, WA..........................................         1,850,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Intermodal Facilities, Salt Lake City, UT..................................................         5,000,000  Senators Hatch, Bennett
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  JATRAN Light Rail Feasibility Study, MS....................................................           500,000  Senator Cochran
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Lafayette Hybrid Bus Project, IN...........................................................         2,100,000  Senator Lugar
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Lake Tahoe Bus Facilities..................................................................           500,000  Senator Reid
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Lakewood Multi Modal Facility, NJ..........................................................         1,000,000  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Laredo Bus Maintenance Facility and Refueling Depot, TX....................................         1,000,000  Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Lufkin VA Clinic Shuttle, TX...............................................................           300,000  Senator Cornyn
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  LYNX Buses, Orlando, FL....................................................................         3,000,000  Senator Martinez
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Marshall County Vehicle Replacement for Seniors and for the Mentally Disabled, AL..........           300,000  Senator Shelby
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  MARTA Clean Fuel Buses and Facilities, GA..................................................         1,400,000  Senator Isakson
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Murray-Calloway County Transit Authority Expansion Project, KY.............................         1,200,000  Senator McConnell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  ND Statewide Transit, ND...................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Nevada Statewide Bus Facilities............................................................           500,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA....................................................           480,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Paducah Area Transit System, KY............................................................         2,500,000  Senator McConnell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Pierce Transit Peninsula Park and Ride, WA.................................................         1,775,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Pullman Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA....................................................         1,356,000  Senators Murray and Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Queen Street Station, PA...................................................................         3,000,000  Senator Specter
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Reno/Sparks Intermodal Transportation Center developments, NV..............................           500,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI..........................................         2,000,000  Senators Inouye, Akaka
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Senatoror Transportation, RI...............................................................           200,000  Senators Whitehouse, Reed
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Southside Bus Facility Replacement in Hampton Roads, VA....................................         2,000,000  Senators Warner, Webb
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  St. Louis Metro Bus and Paratransit Rolling Stock Project, MO..............................         4,000,000  Senator Bond
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  State of Illinois downstate bus and bus facilities, IL.....................................         5,000,000  Senator Durbin
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MD.......................................................         2,000,000  Senators Cardin, Mikulski
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO.......................................................         2,000,000  Senator Bond
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Enhancements, AK............................................           600,000  Senator Stevens
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Statewide Bus Replacement, RI..............................................................         1,000,000  Senator Reed
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  TownSenator Great Smoky Mountain Heritage Bus Station, TN..................................         1,000,000  Senator Alexander
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Transit Authority of Lexington Bus Purchase Project, KY....................................         3,100,000  Senator McConnell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Buses, KY...........................................         1,500,000  Senators Bunning, McConnell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Transit Bus and Bus Replacement, IA........................................................         4,000,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility, City of Las Cruces, NM........................         1,000,000  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Treasure Valley Transit Facilities, ID.....................................................           500,000  Senators Crapo, Craig
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Twin Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.......................................................           410,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  University of Alabama Bus and Bus Facility Project, AL.....................................           500,000  Senator Sessions
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Valley Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.....................................................           388,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Whatcom County Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA.............................................         2,000,000  Senator Murray
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI.............................................         4,000,000  Senator Kohl
Buses and Bus Facilities...............  Wonderland Intermodal Transit Improvements, MA.............................................         1,000,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project, MN............................................        20,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Central Link Initial Segment, Seattle, WA..................................................        28,846,735  Senators Murray, Cantwell, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, AZ.................................................        91,800,000  The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Charlotte Rapid Transit Extension Northeast Corridor, NC...................................        18,000,000  Senators Dole, Burr
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  CTA Brown Line, IL (Ravenswood)............................................................        29,474,404  Senator Durbin, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  CTA Circle Line, IL........................................................................         8,000,000  Senator Durbin
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Dallas Area Rapid Transit Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, TX...........................        87,974,716  Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, The
                                                                                                                                                         President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Downtown Orlando East-West Circulator System, FL...........................................         8,000,000  Senator Martinez
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA...........................................................        30,000,000  Senators Webb, Warner
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, HI........................................        20,000,000  Senators Inouye, Akaka
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Houston METRO--Advanced Transit Program/METRO Solutions Phase 2, TX........................        10,000,000  Senator Hutchison
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, NJ..........................................................         1,103,860  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, The
                                                                                                                                                         President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Largo Metrorail Extension, Washington, DC..................................................        34,700,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin, Warner, Webb,
                                                                                                                                                         The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY.................................................       197,370,000  Senator Schumer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, CA.........................................        74,600,000  Senators Feinstein, Boxer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  MARC Commuter Rail Improvements and Rolling Stock, MD......................................        15,000,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  METRA, IL..................................................................................         6,607,000  Senator Durbin
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Miami-Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, FL......................................        20,000,000  Senators Martinez, Bill Nelson
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Mid Jordan Light Rail Extension, UT........................................................        10,000,000  Senators Bennett, Hatch
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Norfolk Light Rail Project, VA.............................................................        57,055,734  Senators Webb, Warner, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  North Shore LRT Corridor, PA...............................................................           670,885  The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN........................................................        71,166,060  Senators Klobuchar, Coleman, The
                                                                                                                                                         President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  San Francisco Third Street Light Rail Transit Project--Central Subway, CA..................         8,000,000  Senators Feinstein, Boxer
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Second Avenue Subway--Phase I, NY..........................................................       249,927,000  Senator Schumer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  South Corridor I205/Portland Mall Light Rail Project, OR...................................        81,600,000  Senator Smith, Wyden, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  South County Commuter Rail, Wickford Junction Station, RI..................................         1,345,500  Senator Reed
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2 Project, CA..............................................         7,000,000  Senators Feinstein, Boxer
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Southeast Corridor LRT, CO.................................................................         1,031,210  Senators Allard, Salazar, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Stamford Urban Transitway, CT..............................................................         5,000,000  Senators Dodd, Lieberman
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, NJ..........................................................        75,000,000  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  University Link LRT Extension, WA..........................................................       100,000,000  Senator Murray, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  VRE Rolling Stock, VA......................................................................         5,000,000  Senator Webb
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT...........................................        81,600,000  Senators Bennett, Hatch, The President
Capital Investment Grants--New Starts..  West Corridor Light Rail, CO...............................................................        70,000,000  Senators Allard, Salazar, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, CA..................................................         3,000,000  Senator Feinstein
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Bellevue-Redmond BRT, WA...................................................................        20,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Bus Rapid Transit, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, VA...........................................         1,000,000  Senator Webb
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Bus Rapid Transit--State Avenue Corridor, Wyandotte County, KS.............................         1,500,000  Senator Brownback
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Commuter Rail Improvements, Fitchburg, MA..................................................        27,000,000  The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  I-69 HOV/BRT, MS...........................................................................         7,650,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Improvements to the Rosslyn Metro Station, VA..............................................         2,000,000  Senator Webb
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Livermore-Amador Bus Rapid Transit, CA.....................................................         7,990,000  Senators Feinstein, Boxer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Los Angeles Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure, CA.........................................           332,620  Senators Feinstein, Boxer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Los Angeles Wilshire Blvd Bus-Only Lane, CA................................................        10,952,330  Senators Feinstein, Boxer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Mason Street Corridor bus rapid transit, CO................................................        11,182,000  Senators Allard, Salazar, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Mountain Links BRT, AZ.....................................................................         6,238,000  The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Pacific Highway South BRT, WA..............................................................           281,520  Senator Murray, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, CA.................................................        50,000,000  Senators Feinstein, Boxer, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Pioneer Parkway EmX BRT, Springfield, OR...................................................           296,000  The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Portland Streetcar Loop, OR................................................................        50,000,000  Senators Wyden, Smith, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  San Diego Mid-City Rapid, CA...............................................................        21,650,000  Senator Feinstein, The President
Capital Investment Grants--Small Starts  Troost Corridor BRT, Kansas City, MO.......................................................           125,200  Senator Bond, The President
Delta Regional Transportation            Byram-Clinton/Norrell Corridor, MS.........................................................         1,500,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Downtown Greenwood Connector Route, MS.....................................................         1,500,000  Senator Cochran
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Natchez Riverfront Trails, MS..............................................................           450,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Poplar Bluff Bypass, MO....................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Bond
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Route 60, MO...............................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Route 61, MO...............................................................................           639,550  Senator Bond
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Route 84-Interstate 55, MO.................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS..........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
 Development Program.
Delta Regional Transportation            Stoddard County, to make road improvements, MO.............................................           360,440  Senator Bond
 Development Program.
Denali Commission......................  Denali Commission, AK......................................................................         6,000,000  Senator Stevens
Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade        Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA................................................         1,000,000  Senator Feinstein
 Crossing Hazards.
Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade        Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation, Port of Tacoma, WA........................................         1,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Crossing Hazards.
Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade        Shaw Road Extension Project, City of Puyallup, WA..........................................         2,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Crossing Hazards.
FAA--Facilities and Equipment..........  Approach Lighting System Improvement Program, AK...........................................         2,500,000  Senator Stevens
FAA--Facilities and Equipment..........  Runway Obstruction Warning System, MS......................................................         1,500,000  Senator Cochran
FAA--Facilities and Equipment..........  Wind Hazard Detection Equipment, McCarran International, NV................................           850,000  Senators Reid, Engisn
FAA--Facilities and Equipment..........  ILS for Reno Tahoe Airport.................................................................           250,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
FAA--Operations........................  Medallion Program, AK......................................................................         2,500,000  Senator Stevens
FAA--Research, Engineering and           Advanced Materials Performance Research, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita          2,500,000  Senators Brownback, Roberts
 Development.                             State University, Wichita, KS.
FAA--Research, Engineering and           Center for Runway Safety Systems, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS...................           750,000  Senator Brownback
 Development.
FAA--Research, Engineering and           Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures........................................           500,000  Senator Murray
 Development.
FAA--Terminal Air Traffic Control        Greenwood Airport Tower Construction, MS...................................................           250,000  Senator --------------
 Facilities.
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  17-Mile Road Reconstruction, Wind River Indian Reservation, WY.............................           500,000  Senator Enzi
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Alaska Trails Initiative, AK...............................................................         2,000,000  Senator Stevens
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  BRAC-related Improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD.......................................         3,000,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  BRAC-related Improvements in Harford County, MD............................................         3,000,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  BRAC-related Improvements in Montgomery County, MD.........................................         3,000,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  B-Reactor Access Road Analysis Project, WA.................................................           200,000  Senator Murray
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Cannonball and Fort Yates Streets, ND......................................................         1,350,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID.......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Crapo, Craig
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Cuny Table Road (BIA Route 2), Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD...........................         1,000,000  Senator Johnson
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI......................................................         1,000,000  Senator Inouye
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID.................................................................           500,000  Senators Craig, Crapo
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Flight 93 National Memorial, PA............................................................         3,000,000  Senators Specter, Casey
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Grand Teton National Park Pathways System, WY..............................................         2,000,000  Senator Barrasso
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ...............................................................         4,500,000  Senator Kyl
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Improvements to SD 73 from US 18 to Jackson County Serving Pine Ridge and Rosebud                   1,000,000  Senator Thune
                                          Reservation, SD.
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Montana Secondary 323 from Ekalaka to Alzada, MT...........................................         3,000,000  Senator Baucus
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Powers Boulevard at Peterson AFB, CO.......................................................         2,000,000  Senator Salazar
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Pyramid Lake Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV..................................................           500,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Sand Dunes Northern Access Road, CO........................................................           500,000  Senator Allard
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Skokomish Tribe Reservation Road Improvements, WA..........................................         1,000,000  Senator Murray
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV...................................................         3,000,000  Senators Reid, Ensign
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  Squaxin Island Access Improvement Project, WA..............................................         1,000,000  Senator Murray
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway--Las Vegas to Pahrump, NV......................................         2,750,000  Senators Ensign, Reid
Federal Lands (Public Lands Highways)..  US 491: Navajo 9 to Shiprock, Four-lane upgrade, NM........................................         1,000,000  Senator Bingaman
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           City of Gustavus Public Dock and Floats, AK................................................         1,000,000  Senator Murkowski
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           Ferry Service for Route 240 Bridge Improvements, MO........................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           Long Island Ferry Dock Construction, Boston, MA............................................         1,000,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           Mayport Ferry Rehabilitation, FL...........................................................           500,000  Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           North Carolina Statewide Ferry System, NC..................................................         2,000,000  Senator Dole
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           Rich Passage Wake Impact Study, WA.........................................................         2,000,000  Senator Murray
 Facilities.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal           Vashon Island PasSenatorer Ferry, WA.......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Facilities.
FRA--Research and Development..........  PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety, IL.......................................................           500,000  Senator Durbin
FRA--Research and Development..........  Ohio Hub Cleveland--Columbus Rail Corridor, OH.............................................           500,000  Senator Brown
FRA--Research and Development..........  Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia University, WV..............................           250,000  Senator Byrd
FRA--Research and Development..........  Track Stability Technology, Marshall University, WV........................................           500,000  Senator Byrd
FTA--Research..........................  Missouri Transportation Institute..........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
FTA--Research..........................  WVU Exhaust Emissions Testing Initiative, WV...............................................           500,000  Senator Byrd
Interstate Maintenance.................  Columbia River Crossing, OR................................................................         3,000,000  Senators Wyden, Smith
Interstate Maintenance.................  H-1 Kinau Off Ramp, HI.....................................................................         5,000,000  Senator Inouye
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-10 Connector Project, Dothan, AL.........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Sessions
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-10 Interchange at Pecue Lane, LA.........................................................           500,000  Senators Vitter, Landrieu
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-10 Reconstruction from Las Cruces to milepost 165, NM....................................         2,000,000  Senator Bingaman
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-12 Sound Walls, LA.......................................................................           500,000  Senator Vitter
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-225 and Colfax/17th Place Interchange, CO................................................         1,000,000  Senators Allard, Salazar
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-25 North from SH 56 to US 34, CO.........................................................         2,000,000  Senators Salazar, Allard
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-35W Improvement Project, TX..............................................................         1,000,000  Senators Cornyn, Hutchison
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-35W North Congestion Mitigation & Design, MN.............................................         1,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-44 Pavement Improvements from Glenstone Avenue to Kansas Expressway, Greene County, MO...         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-44 Pavement Improvements from US-65 to Glenstone Avenue, MO..............................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-70 Stapleton Interchange, CO.............................................................         2,000,000  Senators Salazar, Allard
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-70 Viaduct Realignment, Topeka, KS.......................................................         1,000,000  Senator Brownback
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-84, Caldwell to Nampa Widening, ID.......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Crapo, Craig
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-85 NB Viaduct at SR 400 NB--Exit Lane, GA................................................           500,000  Senator Chambliss
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-85 Widening, NC..........................................................................         1,000,000  Senators Burr, Dole
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-94/9th Street Interchange, ND............................................................         1,000,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-95/US 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC............................................         1,000,000  Senator Lindsey Graham
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI................................................         2,000,000  Senators Whitehouse, Reed
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-95 toll Facility Rehabilitation and Highway Speed E-ZPass Improvements, DE...............         2,000,000  Senators Carper, Biden
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington Road, VA..............................         2,000,000  Senator Webb
Interstate Maintenance.................  Improvements on I-90 from the Lawrence County Line to Exit 32, SD..........................         2,000,000  Senator Thune
Interstate Maintenance.................  Lincoln Parish/I-20 Transportation Corridor, LA............................................           500,000  Senator Landrieu
Interstate Maintenance.................  I-25 Reconstruction, Glenrock to Casper Hat Six Section, WY................................         2,000,000  Senators Enzi, Barrasso
Interstate Maintenance.................  Interstate 29 Utility Reconstruction, IA...................................................         1,000,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin
Interstate Maintenance.................  Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR...........................................         2,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Interstate Maintenance.................  Third Army Road/Interstate 75 Interchange Construction, GA.................................           750,000  Senators Chambliss, Isakson
Interstate Maintenance.................  Turnpike Improvement Project: SR1 and I-95, DE.............................................         2,000,000  Senators Biden, Carper
Interstate Maintenance.................  US 17 in Onslow County, NC.................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Dole
Maritime Administration................  Marview....................................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Cochran
NHTSA--Operations and Research.........  Plastic and Composite Vehicles Research....................................................           500,000  Senator Murray
Rail Line Relocation...................  Passenger Rail Corridor CREATE Projects, Chicago, IL.......................................         2,000,000  Senator Durbin
Rail Line Relocation...................  Phase 3 Rail Rehabilitation in Redwood Falls, MN...........................................         1,000,000  Senator Klobuchar
Rail Line Relocation...................  Short Line Rehabilitating, Salem, NJ.......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Menendez, Lautenberg
Rail Line Relocation...................  Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco, CA.................................................         2,000,000  Senator Boxer
Rail Line Relocation...................  West Freight Access Project, Port of Vancouver, WA.........................................         1,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Rail Line Relocation...................  COLT Overpass over US 63, Boone County, MO.................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  146th Street Corridor Extension, Boone County, IN..........................................           500,000  Senator Lugar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  159th and US 69 Interchange Improvements, Overland Park, KS................................         1,000,000  Senators Roberts, Brownback
Surface Transportation Priorities......  2300 West Upgrade, 1900 South to 2100 North, UT............................................         1,000,000  Senator Hatch
Surface Transportation Priorities......  5th and Market Street Transportation Improvements, PA......................................           500,000  Senator Specter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Advanced Bridge Safety Initiative, ME......................................................           500,000  Senators Collins, Snowe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Anchor Lake Project, MS....................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI................................................         1,000,000  Senators Stabenow, Levin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Artesia Road Bypass, MS....................................................................         1,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Barnes Crossing Road/Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge, MS......................................           500,000  Senators Wicker, Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Bayside Promenade, ME......................................................................           800,000  Senators Snowe, Collins
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Bland Street Improvements, Bland, MO.......................................................           300,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Bonneville/Clark One-Way Couplet, NV.......................................................           500,000  Senator Reid
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Plan, LA..................................................         1,000,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Bridge over Brandywine Creek, PA...........................................................           750,000  Senator Specter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Campus Loop Road Extension for St. John Fisher College, NY.................................           500,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Cesar Chavez Blvd/Calexico-West Port of Entry Congestion Improvements, CA..................         3,000,000  Senator Boxer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project--University Blvd and Greensboro Avenue,          4,000,000  Senator Shelby
                                          AL.
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Cline Avenue Extension, East Chicago, IN...................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bayh
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Clinton Street Bridge Replacement, Fort Wayne, IN..........................................           500,000  Senators Bayh, Lugar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Coalfields Expressway, WV..................................................................         5,000,000  Senator Byrd
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Construction of Lafayette Interchange, MO..................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Cumberland Parkway/US 41 Expansion, GA.....................................................         1,000,000  Senator Isakson
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Decatur Downtown Streetscape Project, AL...................................................           350,000  Senator Sessions
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Delaware Avenue Bridge, IA.................................................................           500,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  East Texas Higher Speed Rail Feasibility Study, TX.........................................           300,000  Senator Hutchison
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway Completion Project, KY.............................         2,000,000  Senator McConnell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  El Camino East/West Corridor, Winnfield, LA................................................           500,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Establishment of Railroad Quiet Zones in the Town of Hamburg, NY...........................           500,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  FM509 Extension, Harlingen, TX.............................................................           500,000  Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Fort Drum Connector (I-81 to Fort Drum North Gate), NY.....................................         1,000,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Freedom Road Transportation Improvement Project, PA........................................         1,750,000  Senators Specter, Casey
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Gate and Intersection Improvements at Fort Lee, VA.........................................         1,000,000  Senators Warner, Webb
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Granite Falls Alternate Route, WA..........................................................         2,500,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Great Miami Boulevard Extension, OH........................................................           500,000  Senator Voinovich
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Harden Street Improvements--Phase II, SC...................................................         1,000,000  Senator Lindsey Graham
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Hastings Bridge, MN........................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Klobuchar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Highway 100 Extension from Edgewood Road to Highway 30, Cedar Rapids, IA...................         1,000,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Highway 14-Waseca to Owatonna, MN..........................................................         2,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Highway 75 Revitalization Project, AL......................................................           250,000  Senator Sessions
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Highway 9 Improvements, MS.................................................................         3,000,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, NJ........................................................           500,000  Senators Menendez, Lautenberg
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-10 New Orleans East Upgrades, LA.........................................................           200,000  Senator Landrieu
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-12 Interchange at LA 15, Denham Springs, LA..............................................           750,000  Senator Landrieu
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-295/76/42 Direct Connection, NJ..........................................................         3,000,000  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-49 South, LA.............................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-5 to Hwy. 99W Connector, OR..............................................................         3,000,000  Senators Smith, Wyden
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-540 Interchange Improvements, Washington and Benton Counties, AR.........................         2,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-555 Access Road, Poinsett County, AR.....................................................         2,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-69, Shreveport, LA.......................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-69, TN...................................................................................           500,000  Senators Corker, Alexander
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-69, TX...................................................................................           500,000  Senator Hutchsion
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-93 Kalispell Bypass, MT..................................................................         3,000,000  Senators Tester, Baucus
Surface Transportation Priorities......  I-95 Interchange at SR 202 (Butler Blvd.), FL..............................................         1,000,000  Senator Martinez
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Improvements to the Route 60 Bridges over the James River, MO..............................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Improvements to US Route 1 for access to York County Community College, ME.................           500,000  Senators Collins, Snowe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Improvements to US-54, Seward County, KS...................................................         1,000,000  Senator Brownback
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Indian River Inlet Bridge, DE..............................................................         2,000,000  Senators Carper, Biden
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Intersection Improvements on US 212 and US 81 and Improvements to US 81, SD................         1,000,000  Senator Thune
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Intersection Safety Improvements, Olympia Fields, IL.......................................           500,000  Senator Durbin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR...........................................         3,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR..............................         3,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Isabel Swamp Road, Washington Parish, LA...................................................           450,000  Senator Landrieu
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Joplin Downtown Revitalization, MO.........................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  K-7 Corridor Study from 183rd St to 119th Street in Olathe, KS.............................           750,000  Senators Roberts, Brownback
Surface Transportation Priorities......  King Coal Highway, WV......................................................................         5,000,000  Senator Byrd
Surface Transportation Priorities......  LA-1 Goldenmeadow to Port Fourchon, LA.....................................................           650,000  Senator Landrieu
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Lake Charles Riverfront Development Plan...................................................           250,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Lake Mead Parkway, Phase 2, NV.............................................................           250,000  Senator Reid
Surface Transportation Priorities......  LA 28, Vernon Parish, LA...................................................................         2,000,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, NH..................................................         2,000,000  Senator Gregg
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Longfellow Bridge Approach Gateway, Cambridge, MA..........................................         1,000,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Martha/I-76 Connection, OH.................................................................           500,000  Senator Voinovich
Surface Transportation Priorities......  McKinley/Riverside Avenues Safety Improvement Project, Muncie, IN..........................         1,000,000  Senator Lugar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Melbourne International Access Road, FL....................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bill Nelson
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Milwaukee Intermodal Station Improvements to Train Shed and Platforms, WI..................         1,500,000  Senator Kohl
Surface Transportation Priorities......  N.A. Sandifer Highway, MS..................................................................           315,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Surface Transportation Priorities......  New Hampshire Department of Transportation, U.S. Route 4 Red List Bridge Repair, West               1,000,000  Senator Sununu
                                          Lebanon, NH.
Surface Transportation Priorities......  New York State Route 12....................................................................           500,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Niagara Falls International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation Center, NY...........           500,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Peters Road Extension, Plaquemines Parish, LA..............................................           650,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  ReTrac Project Enhancements, Reno, NV......................................................           250,000  Senators Reid, Engisn
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Northside Drive, MS........................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Northwest Loop Access Road, Sandoval County, NM............................................         1,000,000  Senator Domenici
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Page Extension Phase II, MO................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Park Avenue Multi-Use Trail, ME............................................................           800,000  Senators Snowe, Collins
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Development Program, PA.....................................         1,000,000  Senator Specter
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Pinon Hills Boulevard East and Animas River Bridge, NM.....................................         1,000,000  Senator Domenici
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Plaza del Sol Project, Village of Angel Fire, NM...........................................           350,000  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Port Industrial Road Improvement Project, WA...............................................         4,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Portsmouth Town Center Plan, RI............................................................         1,000,000  Senators Reed, Whitehouse
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Reconstruction of Riverside Drive, CT......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Dodd, Lieberman
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Redesign and Reconstruction of I-235 and Kellogg Interchange, Wichita, KS..................           500,000  Senators Roberts, Brownback
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Replacement of US-159 Bridge at Rulo, NE...................................................         1,200,000  Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Rickenbacker Intermodal East-West Connector, OH............................................           300,000  Senators Voinovich, Brown
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Road improvements on Powderhouse Road from SD 42 to Madison Street, Sioux Falls, SD........         3.000,000  Senator Johnson
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA.............................................         1,000,000  Senator Webb
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Route 1 and Route 34 Connector, CT.........................................................           500,000  Senator Lieberman
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Route 150, MO..............................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Route 5 Improvements in Laclede and Camden Counties, MO....................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Salt Fork of the Red River Bridge Martha Crossing, OK......................................         1,500,000  Senator Inhofe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  SE Connector, SE 6th Street to SE 14th Street (US 69), Des Moines, IA......................         1,500,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Shiloh Road, MT............................................................................         5,000,000  Senators Baucus, Tester
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Slide Repair Work along US 60 in Eastern Kanawha County, WV................................         5,000,000  Senator Byrd
Surface Transportation Priorities......  South Entrance Interchange at Mississippi State University, MS.............................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Southwest Arterial, Dubuque, IA............................................................         1,000,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  St. John Medical Center--Broken Arrow Traffic Improvement, OK..............................           250,000  Senator Inhofe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Starkweather Creek Parkway Bike Path, WI...................................................         1,000,000  Senator Kohl
Surface Transportation Priorities......  State Route 317, between I-75 and Collegedale in Hamilton County, TN.......................         1,000,000  Senators Alexander, Corker
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Steptoe Street Extension Project, WA.......................................................         2,000,000  Senator Murray
Surface Transportation Priorities......  TH 610 from US 169 to I-94, Maple Grove, MN................................................         1,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  TH-13/CR 5 Interchange, MN.................................................................         1,000,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Town of Clarkstown, New City Hamlet, NY to revitalize South Main Street....................           500,000  Senator Schumer
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Town of Lexington United Traffic Plan--Phase I, SC.........................................         1,000,000  Senator Lindsey Graham
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Town of Tamworth, Chocorua Village Safety Project, NH......................................           500,000  Senator Sununu
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Traffic Light--Piedmont Road and Edmond Road, OK...........................................           100,000  Senator Inhofe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Trinity River Vision Bridges, Fort Worth, TX...............................................         1,000,000  Senators Hutchison, Cornyn
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. 101 Safety Improvements at Deer Park, WA..............................................           980,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. 12 Safety Improvements, WA............................................................         3,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. 17 Widening, FL.......................................................................         2,000,000  Senator Bill Nelson
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. 2 Safety Improvements, WA.............................................................         2,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. 61 Fort Madison Bypass Interchange at Highway J40, IA.................................         1,000,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  US Highway 30 Improvements, Whiteside County, IL...........................................           500,000  Senator Durbin
Surface Transportation Priorities......  U.S. Highway 59 Safety Improvements, MN....................................................         1,000,000  Senator Klobuchar
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Urban Collector Road along I-10 North, MS..................................................         2,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Surface Transportation Priorities......  US 169 Highway Widening Environmental Assessment, OK.......................................         1,000,000  Senator Inhofe
Surface Transportation Priorities......  US Route 64, TN............................................................................         1,500,000  Senators Alexander, Corker
Surface Transportation Priorities......  US-191, Moab to Crescent Junction, UT......................................................         2,000,000  Senators Bennett, Hatch
Surface Transportation Priorities......  US-69 in Bourbon, Crawford, and Cherokee Counties, KS......................................           750,000  Senators Brownback, Roberts
Surface Transportation Priorities......  V&T Railroad Reconstruction Project, NV....................................................           500,000  Senator Reid
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Vermont Route 15 Improvements in Johnson and Essex Junction, VT............................         3,000,000  Senator Leahy
Surface Transportation Priorities......  West Point Defense Facility Access Improvements, MS........................................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  West Virginia Route 10, WV.................................................................         5,000,000  Senator Byrd
Surface Transportation Priorities......  West Virginia Route 9, WV..................................................................         7,000,000  Senator Byrd
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Western Beltway Transportation Infrastructure Plan, MS.....................................           500,000  Senator Cochran
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Western Kentucky University (WKU), University-Community Bikeway Project, KY................         1,000,000  Senator McConnell
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Whiterock Sustainable Trail, Guthrie County, IA............................................           400,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
Surface Transportation Priorities......  Zanesville State Street Bridge Renovation and Repair Project, OH...........................           500,000  Senator Brown
Transportation & Community & System      A-B Street Corridor Connector Project, WA..................................................         2,000,000  Senator Murray
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Avenue of the Arts Revitalization and Streetscaping Project, PA............................           500,000  Senator Casey
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Boone County Gunpowder Creek Trail System, KY..............................................           450,000  Senator McConnell
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Capitol Street Renaissance Project, MS.....................................................         3,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Children's Wharf Landing Intermodal Improvements, Boston, MA...............................         1,000,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO......................................           500,000  Senator Bond
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      City of Haverhill Downtown Streetscape Improvements, MA....................................           300,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      City of Negaunee, Croix Street Reconstruction; Completion of Phase I: Negaunee, MI.........           500,000  Senators Levin, Stabenow
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      College Avenue Redesign, NJ................................................................         1,000,000  Senators Lautenberg, Menendez
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Downtown Revitalization: Phase II of Main Street Revitalization, Las Cruces, NM............           500,000  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      East Aztec Arterial Route, NM..............................................................           500,000  Senators Domenici, Bingaman
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Elkins Railyard Project, WV................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Byrd
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Garrison Avenue Streetscaping, AR..........................................................         1,000,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Hattiesburgh 4th Street Improvements, MS...................................................         2,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      I-80 Intermodal Corridor Study--Oakland, CA to Utah Stateline, UT..........................         1,000,000  Senator Reid
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements and enhancements, IL.........         3,000,000  Senator Durbin
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Kanawha Trestle Rail-Trail Project, WV.....................................................         2,000,000  Senator Byrd
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND...........................................................           343,750  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization Project, NY...............................         1,000,000  Senator Schumer
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Mexico Technology Park, MO.................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      North Parkway Safety Improvement Project, WA...............................................           500,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Old Allentown Streetscape Improvements, PA.................................................           500,000  Senator Casey
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Potomac Street Improvement, WV.............................................................         1,500,000  Senator Byrd
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Sidewalk Improvements, Williamstown, VT....................................................           200,000  Senators Leahy, Sanders
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      University Place Pedestrian Overpass, WA...................................................           500,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Preservation.
Transportation & Community & System      Woodland Trail Project, WA.................................................................           500,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Preservation.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Assessment of Critical Transportation Infrastructure, MS...................................           750,000  Senator Cochran
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Decision Support Tools for Transportation Resilience and Security, MS......................           750,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Fire and Oil Spill Response Communications Project, WA.....................................         1,600,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Freight Transportation Policy Institute, WA................................................           500,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, WA....................................................           250,000  Senator Murray
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    University Transportation Center, MS.......................................................           500,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
 Development.
Transportation Planning, Research and    Wildlife Crossing Project, FL..............................................................         1,000,000  Senator Bill Nelson
 Development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Grantee                                                            Project                                                 Funding                       Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180 Turning Lives Around, Hazlet, NJ...  For the design and construction of a new domestic violence shelter.........................        $1,000,000  Senator Lautenberg
Acadiana Outreach Center, Lafayette, LA  For building of a mixed income housing development.........................................           750,000  Senators Landrieu, Vitter
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality,      For renovation of the former Western Union Building located at the corner of Huron Street             750,000  Senator Brown
 Inc. Toledo, OH.                         and Jefferson Avenue in downtown Toledo, OH.
Albany Dougherty Industrial Park,        For transformation of real estate property and infrastructure into a Certified Industrial             200,000  Senator Chambliss
 Albany, GA.                              Park.
Alexandria Riverfront Multi-Site         For the redevelopment of the Alexandria Riverfront.........................................           400,000  Senator Vitter
 Development.
American Lighthouse Foundation,          For restoration and preservation of Maine's historic lighthouses...........................           400,000  Senators Collins, Snowe
 Rockland, ME.
Appalachia Service Project, WV.........  For providing free home repairs to low-income families in Southern West Virginia...........           500,000  Senator Byrd
Ardmore Development Authority/City of    For infrastructure improvements necessary to develop the Ardmore Technology Park...........           200,000  Senator Inhofe
 Ardmore, OK.
Arlington Chamber of Commerce,           For development of an entrepreneurial center...............................................           200,000  Senator Hutchison
 Arlington, TX.
Armstrong County, PA...................  For site preparation and redevelopment of a brownfield site................................           200,000  Senator Specter
Audubon Mississippi, Moss Point, MS....  For a nature-based education facility......................................................         1,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Audubon Nature Institute, New Orleans,   For building a Living Science Museum.......................................................           200,000  Senator Landrieu
 LA.
Barnesville-Lamar County Industrial      For site preparation and infrastructure....................................................           500,000  Senator Chambliss
 Park, Barnesville, GA.
Berkshire Theater Festival,              For renovation and revitalization of the Berkshire Theatre Festival's facilities and                  200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
 Stockbridge, MA.                         grounds.
Bernalillo County, NM..................  For transitional housing facility for recovering substance abuse clients...................           600,000  Senator Domenici
Beyond Housing, St. Louis, MO..........  For the demolition and for the Pagedale Community Development Initiative...................         1,500,000  Senator Bond
Big Sky Econ. Dev. Authority, Billings,  For development and urban renewal in East Downtown Billings................................           325,000  Senator Baucus
 MT.
Boys & Girls Club of the Grand River,    For the Boys and Girls Club of the Grand River Area (South Dakota sites) for facility                 200,000  Senator Johnson
 McLaughlin, SD.                          upgrades to existing and new sites on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
Boys and Girls Club of Fauquier County,  For facility renovations in support of the new building, including making the building                200,000  Senators Warner, Webb
 VA.                                      handicap accessible.
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua,   For renovation and expansion of the facility...............................................           300,000  Senator Gregg
 Nashua, NH.
Care and Share Food Bank, Colorado       For equipment to be used to expand services to low-income individuals......................           300,000  Senator Salazar
 Springs, CO.
Casey County Fiscal Court, Liberty, KY.  For renovations at the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Expo Center........................           200,000  Senator Bunning
Casper College, Casper, WY.............  For the creation of business incubators....................................................           500,000  Senator Barrasso
Cathedral Soup Kitchen, Inc., Camden,    For the construction of a new facility.....................................................           200,000  Senator Lautenberg
 NJ.
Center for People in Need, Lincoln, NE.  For construction and renovation to create the Non-Profits and Education/Training Center....         1,000,000  Senator Ben Nelson
Central Utah Pioneer Heritage            For construction and project development funds.............................................           200,000  Senator Bennett
 Association, UT.
Centre County Industrial Development     For site preparation and redevelopment as part of the West End revitalization initiative...           200,000  Senator Specter
 Corporation, PA.
Charleston Kanawha Housing Authority,    For new low-income housing at the Littlepage Terrace and Washington Manor public housing            2,000,000  Senator Byrd
 Chas. WV.                                facilities in downtown Charleston, WV.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing            For transforming vacant and blighted properties along the Statesville Avenue Corridor into            400,000  Senator Dole
 Partnership, Charlotte, NC.              affordable housing.
Child Abuse and Neglect Council Of       For renovation and expansion of the facility...............................................           500,000  Senators Levin, Stabenow
 Oakland County, Pontiac, MI.
Chilkat Indian Village/Klukwan, AK.....  For construction of Heritage Center and Bald Eagle Observatory.............................           500,000  Senator Stevens
Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT.....  For transportation and rehabilitation of housing units from Malmstrom Air force base that             750,000  Senators Tester, Baucus
                                          would otherwise be destroyed to the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
Christopher House, Chicago, IL.........  For the construction of Logan Square Family Resource Center................................           250,000  Senator Durbin
City of Ada, OK........................  For construction of a water storage tower..................................................           200,000  Senator Inhofe
City of Aliceville, AL.................  For downtown revitalization................................................................           400,000  Senator Shelby
City of Beaumont, TX...................  For streetscape improvements...............................................................           200,000  Senator Hutchison
City of Berlin, NH.....................  For the acquisition and demolition of dilapidated housing..................................           300,000  Senator Sununu
City of Billings, MT...................  For environmental remediation and demolition of building previously owned by U.S. Naval               500,000  Senator Tester
                                          Reserve.
City of Boise, ID......................  For design and construction of the City of Boise's geothermal system expansion.............           700,000  Senators Craig, Crapo
City of Bridgeport, CT.................  For relevant outreach, advocacy, education, financial assistance and support services......           500,000  Senators Dodd, Lieberman
City of Brockton, MA...................  For renovations to the War Memorial building and redevelopment of blighted downtown area...           200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
City of Carbondale, PA.................  For downtown revitalization efforts........................................................           200,000  Senator Specter
City of Carlsbad, NM...................  For continued construction of a youth sports complex in Carlsbad, New Mexico...............           200,000  Senators Bingaman, Domenici
City of Charleston, SC.................  For the preservation, construction, and critically needed improvements to the St. Andrews'            300,000  Senator Graham
                                          neighborhood's low-income housing.
City of Cincinnati, OH.................  For complete property acquisition, demolition, and remediation of the Queen City Barrel               500,000  Senator Voinovich
                                          area to create an urban industrial park.
City of Council Bluffs, IA.............  For housing rehabilitation and construction in the Playland Park neighborhood located north           500,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
                                          of I-480 and west of I-29 in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
City of Craig, AK......................  For the redevelopment of the abandoned cannery property in the City of Craig...............           350,000  Senator Murkowski
City of Detroit, MI....................  For preservation and redevelopment of a public park and related business activities in the          4,000,000  Senator Levin
                                          Corktown Neighborhood.
City of Easton, PA.....................  For housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization.................................           500,000  Senator Casey
City of Evanston, WY...................  For improvements to the Historic Evanston Roundhouse and Railyard in Evanston, Wyoming.....           400,000  Senator Enzi
City Of Highland Park, MI..............  For elimination of blight in the North Point neighborhood..................................           500,000  Senators Stabenow, Levin
City of Hillsboro, TX..................  For streetscape improvements...............................................................           200,000  Senator Hutchison
City of Jackson, MS....................  For renovation and rehabilitation of the Thalia Mara Performing Arts Facility..............           400,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
City of Jackson, MS....................  For the renovation of the Historic Medgar Evers Farish Street NAACP Office.................           750,000  Senator Cochran
City of Jasper, AL.....................  For an industrial park development.........................................................           800,000  Senator Shelby
City of Lake Charles, LA...............  For building a wetlands center in Lake Charles.............................................           250,000  Senator Landrieu
City of Kankakee, IL...................  For the purchase, renovation, and conversion of houses that are in foreclosure, abandoned,            250,000  Senator Durbin
                                          or in disrepair to affordable use properties.
City of Kotzebue, AK...................  For construction of recreation and fairgrounds area........................................           400,000  Senator Stevens
City of Marshalltown, IA...............  For housing redevelopment in the Grant Park Neighborhood...................................           600,000  Senator Grassley
City of Maysville, Maysville, KY.......  For the renovation of the Cox Building.....................................................         2,700,000  Senator McConnell
City of Medford, MA....................  For downtown redevelopment and rehabilitation..............................................           200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
City of Methuen, MA....................  For the rehabilitation and redevelopment of blighted and underutilized buildings...........           200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
City of Midland, TX....................  For downtown redevelopment.................................................................           200,000  Senator Hutchison
City of Milwaukee, WI, Redevelopment     For site acquisition, demolition, remediation and/or redevelopment of priority projects in            200,000  Senator Kohl
 Authority.                               the 30th Street Industrial Corridor.
City of Nashua, NH.....................  For design and construction of downtown riverfront redevelopment program...................           200,000  Senator Gregg
City of North Adams, MA................  For the redevelopment of historic downtown building........................................           200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
City of Northwood, ND..................  For reconstruction of downtown retail and office space destroyed by a tornado..............           700,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
City of Orlando, FL....................  For redevelopment of blighted areas of the Parramore neighborhood..........................         1,000,000  Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez
City of Oxford, MS.....................  For renovation of the Powerhouse Community Arts Center.....................................           300,000  Senator Cochran
City of Pierre, SD.....................  For revitalization of the Pierre historic downtown area and waterfront development.........           200,000  Senator Johnson
City of Portland, OR...................  For capital and operating costs to assist homeless and low income veterans with housing and           600,000  Senators Smith, Wyden
                                          supportive services.
City of Reno, NV.......................  For purchase of vacant buildings for Oliver Montello affordable housing project............           200,000  Senator Reid
City of Rocky Mount, NC................  For renovation of existing buildings for the revitalization of downtown Rocky Mount........           300,000  Senator Dole
City of Roslyn, WA.....................  For structural upgrades and other improvements to Roslyn's primary public facility.........           840,000  Senator Murray
City of South Salt Lake, UT............  For Streetscaping features along State and Main Streets between northern boundary of the              400,000  Senators Bennett, Hatch
                                          City and I-80.
City of Spartanburg, SC................  For installation of residential infrastructure.............................................           400,000  Senator Graham
City of Tarrant, AL....................  For streetscaping and pedestrian walkways to support proposed economic development plans...           400,000  Senator Shelby
City of Toledo, OH.....................  For completion of asbestos abatement and to begin structural improvements for the                     500,000  Senators Voinovich, Brown
                                          redevelopment of the former ACME power plant building.
City of Waterbury, CT..................  For the redevelopment of brownfields.......................................................           250,000  Senator Lieberman
City of Waterloo, IA...................  For demolition and redevelopment of a blighted area........................................           400,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin
City of Wilkes-Barre, PA...............  For revitalization of economic and recreational amenities at Coal Street Park..............         1,000,000  Senator Casey
City of Wilson, NC.....................  For clearing blighted structures from downtown Wilson and constructing new units for                  500,000  Senator Burr
                                          commercial occupancy.
City of Wrangell, AK...................  For renovation of a community center.......................................................           500,000  Senator Stevens
Clark County Food Bank, Clark County,    For the construction of a food bank........................................................           750,000  Senator Murray
 WA.
Clearfield City, UT....................  For purchasing 2.29 blighted acres, and to fund the development of public open spaces......           400,000  Senators Bennett, Hatch
Community Housing of Wyandotte County,   For the continuing revitalization efforts in the St. Peter's neighborhood..................           900,000  Senator Brownback
 Kansas City, KS.
CommunityWorks, Helena, MT.............  For facility construction..................................................................         1,000,000  Senator Baucus
Connie Lupardus, CAEZ, Clay, WV........  For the construction and economic development activities of the Central Appalachian                   200,000  Senator Byrd
                                          Empowerment Zone.
County of Hudson, NJ...................  For transformation of the former Koppers Coke site in Kearny into a two million square foot           400,000  Senators Menendez, Lautenberg
                                          industrial park that includes warehousing and distribution space.
County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara,  For construction and renovation of the Lompoc Veterans Building............................           850,000  Senator Boxer
 CA.
County of Tunica, MS...................  For restoration of existing buildings, construction of addition to the visitors center, and           950,000  Senator Cochran
                                          exhibit design to form a combine the visitors center, blues exhibit and gift shop into a
                                          Blues Gateway in the Mississippi Delta.
Department of Natural Resources,         For construction of a visitor center and recreational facilities...........................           500,000  Senators Mikulski, Cardin
 Annapolis, MD.
Downtown Emergency Services Center,      For the provision of 83 studio apartments for chronically homeless, mentally ill people....           750,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
 Seattle, WA.
Downtown Jackson Plaza Incorporated,     For construction of a civic gathering plaza................................................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
 Jackson, MS.
East Moline Downtown Development, East   For capital improvements to infrastructure and development projects in downtown E. Moline,            250,000  Senator Durbin
 Moline, IL.                              including acquisition and renovation of dilapidated structures.
Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA......  For the expansion of the current Community Center facility.................................           300,000  Senator Murray
Flagship Enterprise Center, Anderson,    For technology and infrastructure improvements.............................................           500,000  Senators Bayh, Lugar
 IN.
Four Bands Community Fund, Eagle Butte,  For the Four Bands Community Fund to enable the organization to capitalize a revolving loan           250,000  Senator Johnson
 SD.                                      program, and in addition provide business development assistance.
Granger, WA............................  For the construction of the Granger Community Center.......................................           300,000  Senator Murray
Grant County Food Bank, Silver City, NM  For the rehabilitation or construction of a facility to serve as a food pantry and thrift             500,000  Senator Bingaman
                                          store to serve the needs of Grant County.
Great Falls Development Authority,       For infrastructure related construction along Black Eagle Road.............................         1,000,000  Senator Tester
 Great Falls, MT.
Great Smoky Mountains Heritage Center,   For expansion and improvements to the Heritage Center......................................           600,000  Senator Alexander
 Townsend,  TN.
Greene County Industrial Board, Greene   For industrial park development............................................................           300,000  Senator Shelby
 County, AL.
Hawaii Public Housing Authority, HI....  For code enforcement and renovation of abandoned housing units to provide 22 housing units            400,000  Senator Inouye
                                          for low income individuals in Honolulu.
Highline-West Seattle Mental Health,     For the provision of permanent, affordable housing and on-site mental health treatment and            225,000  Senator Murray
 Burien, WA.                              case management for 22 adults living with serious and persistent mental illness.
Hocking Athens Pery Community Action,    For the renovation of the community center.................................................           250,000  Senator Brown
 Glouster, OH.
Hope Community Development Corporation,  For purchasing existing dilapidated properties for the construction of new homes...........           750,000  Senator Byrd
 Charleston, WV.
Howard County, Ellicott City, MD.......  For construction and equipment for community rooms.........................................           400,000  Senator Mikulski
International Institute of RI,           For building renovations to expand and improve community services to low-income individ-              300,000  Senator Reed
 Providence, RI.                          uals.
Iowa Dept of Economic Development, Des   For improving the physical and economic health of city centers.............................         1,000,000  Senator Harkin
 Moines, IA.
Jackson County Board of Supervisors,     For improvements and enhancements to the County's multi-purpose community arena in                    200,000  Senator Wicker
 Jackson County, MS.                      Vancleave.
King County Housing Authority, Seattle,  For neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and community investment...................         1,000,000  Senator Murray
 WA.
Kitsap Mental Health Services,           For the provision of 16 residential and short-term stabilization beds for adults age 18 and           400,000  Senator Murray
 Bremerton, WA.                           over with severe or acute mental illness.
Kodiak Island Borough/Women's Bay, AK..  For construction of an emergency shelter...................................................           500,000  Senator Stevens
Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI..........  For planning, design, and construction of the Laiopua 2020 Community Center................           500,000  Senator Akaka
Lake Area Community Center, New          For the building of a mixed-income housing development in Lafayette........................           200,000  Senator Landrieu
 Orleans, LA.
Lake Area Improvement Corporation,       For expansion of the industrial park.......................................................           200,000  Senator Johnson
 Madison, SD.
Lakota Fund, Kyle, SD..................  For capitalization of a revolving loan program and business development assistance.........           250,000  Senator Johnson
Lewiston City, UT......................  For reconstruction and revitalization of local community recreation center.................           250,000  Senator Bennett
Los Pueblos Community Council, Ribera,   For preservation and renovation of Old Ribera School Building for use as a community and              900,000  Senator Domenici
 NM.                                      cultural center.
MAC, Inc., Area Agency on Aging,         For the construction of a new building that will house programs and services for lower                400,000  Senator Cardin
 Salisbury, MD.                           shore elders.
Massachusetts Attorney General, MA.....  For repair of abandoned houses.............................................................           200,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry
Memphis Bioworks Foundation, TN........  For construction of the UT-Baptist Research Park in the downtown Memphis Medical Center....           800,000  Senator Corker
Mercy Housing Lakefront, Chicago, IL...  For the development of supportive housing units for homeless in the City of Milwaukee......           500,000  Senator Kohl
Newport News, VA.......................  For acquisition, demolition and relocation activities, and capital improvements of                    700,000  Senators Warner, Webb
                                          dilapidated housing.
Nickerson Community Center, Providence,  For building renovations to provide permanent rental housing for veterans who are                     600,000  Senators Reed, Whitehouse
 RI.                                      chronically homeless.
Northeast Community Center, Spokane      For the implementation of the third phase of the Center's expansion to include a new                  500,000  Senator Murray
 County, WA.                              partner, Partners for Families and Children.
Northeast Community College, Norfolk,    For construction of the College Center at South Sioux City, NE.............................           500,000  Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel
 NE.
North-Missoula CDC, Missoula, MT.......  For construction of a neighborhood center..................................................         1,000,000  Senators Baucus, Tester
Northern Community Investment            For the North Country Broadband Initiative, NH.............................................           700,000  Senator Gregg
 Corporation, St. Johnsburg, VT.
Nye County, NV.........................  For a multi-generational community facility in Amargosa Valley.............................           200,000  Senator Reid
Office of Economic Opportunity, VT.....  For Support Homeless Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Programs Through Vermont Office of            250,000  Senator Sanders
                                          Economic Opportunity.
Ogontz Avenue Revitalization             For acquisition and rehabilitation of vacant properties as part of a low and moderate                 200,000  Senator Specter
 Corporation, Philadelphia, PA.           income housing initiative.
Ojinjinkta Housing Development           For the inventory and equipment needed for the construction of affordable homes for Native            600,000  Senator Thune
 Corporation, LLC Rosebud Home            Americans.
 Manufacturing Facility, SD.
Oktibbeha County, MS...................  For restoration of the Oktibbeha County Courthouse.........................................           300,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Open Arms of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN  For construction of a new building for Open Arms of Minnesota..............................           300,000  Senator Coleman
Opportunity Village, Las Vegas, NV.....  For a new employment and training center...................................................           600,000  Senators Ensign, Reid
Orange County Government, Orlando, FL..  For renovations to a building to house a center that will engage and support the                    1,000,000  Senator Martinez
                                          chronically homeless.
Orange County Great Park Corporation,    For improvements to the Orange County Great Park...........................................           500,000  Senator Boxer
 CA.
Our City Reading, Reading, PA..........  For a housing rehabilitation initiative and down payment assistance for home buyers........           200,000  Senator Specter
Pacific Gateway Center, HI.............  For retail business incubator capital improvement project targeting immigrants, refugees              300,000  Senator Inouye
                                          and low-to-moderate income residents of Hawaii who seek entrepreneurship as a means of
                                          escaping poverty.
Para Los Ninos, Los Angeles, CA........  For the renovation of the Vermont Avenue Family Resources Center...........................           300,000  Senator Boxer
Pendleton Round-Up Association,          For the reconstruction and construction needs of the Pendelton Round-Up and Happy Canyon              750,000  Senators Smith, Wyden
 Pendleton, OR.                           Facilities.
Port of Gold Beach, OR.................  For rebuilding the high dock...............................................................           200,000  Senators Wyden, Smith
Poughkeepsie, NY.......................  For the development of a pedestrian bridge.................................................         1,000,000  Senator Schumer
Providence Community Action,             For purchase of a building to provide transitional housing for homeless families...........           700,000  Senators Reed, Whitehouse
 Providence, RI.
Provo City, UT.........................  For a parking facility.....................................................................           500,000  Senators Hatch, Bennett
Puget Sound Educational Service Dist,    For the construction of the Greenbridge Early Learning Center..............................         1,000,000  Senator Murray
 Seattle, WA.
Quincy Smelter, Franklin Township, MI..  For remediation and preservation...........................................................           300,000  Senators Levin, Stabenow
Randolph County YMCA, IN...............  For expansion of the Child Care Facility...................................................           500,000  Senator Lugar
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,       For design, construction, and buildout of a multipurpose facility on the Red Lake Indian              300,000  Senator Coleman
 Ponemah, MN.                             reservation to provide space for the provision of youth and elderly programs.
reStart, Inc., Kansas City, MO.........  For facility improvements..................................................................           400,000  Senator Bond
Ritchie County Commission, WV..........  For the completion of the North fork of the Hughes River Watershed Project.................           650,000  Senator Byrd
RurAL CAP, Anchorage, AK...............  For rural Alaska Head Start facility upgrades, including energy-efficiency measures, health/          200,000  Senator Murkowski
                                          safety improvements, and increased activity space.
Rural Learning Center, Howard, SD......  For construction of a green energy training center and elimination of community blight.....           200,000  Senator Thune
Salishan HOPE VI, Tacoma, WA...........  For the neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and community investment...............         1,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
San Juan County, UT....................  For renovations and facility upgrade.......................................................           400,000  Senators Hatch, Bennett
Scott County Housing Council,            For Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Pool in Scott County, Iowa............           400,000  Senators Harkin, Grassley
 Davenport, IA.
Second Harvest Food Bank, Muncie, IN...  For the renovation of the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central Indiana.................           300,000  Senator Lugar
Southwest Indian Foundation, Gallup, NM  For the Operation Footprint program to construct and place new homes for needy Navajo               1,000,000  Senator Bingaman
                                          families.
Southwestern Vermont Council On Aging,   For Vermont Senior Centers Renovations and Maintenance.....................................           400,000  Senator Sanders
 VT.
Spirit Lake Nation, Fort Totten, ND....  For construction of low-income senior housing units........................................           750,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
St. Michael's School and Nursery,        For HVAC replacement in school for low-income children.....................................           300,000  Senators Biden, Carper
 Wilmington, DE.
St. Monica's Home, Lincoln, NE.........  For construction of the new St. Monica's Community Center for low income women and their              440,000  Senator Ben Nelson
                                          families in need of substance abuse and mental health treatment.
Stone County, MS.......................  For heavy equipment to assist in infrastructure needs across the county....................           200,000  Senator Wicker
Tallahatchie County, MS................  For restoration of the Tallahatchie County Courthouse......................................         1,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
The Houston Food Bank, Houston, TX.....  For the purchase and renovation of a new building..........................................           650,000  Senators Cornyn, Hutchison
The Ministry of Caring Inc.,             For handicap accessibility to a homeless shelter for women.................................           500,000  Senators Biden, Carper
 Wilmington, DE.
Town of Boothbay, ME...................  For development of visitor and educational facilities and public access waterfront trails..           500,000  Senator Collins, Snowe
Town of Colmar Manor, MD...............  For construction of the Colmar Manor Community Center......................................           300,000  Senator Cardin
Town of Milo, ME.......................  For utility and infrastructure upgrades to the new Eastern Piscataquis Industrial Park.....           500,000  Senators Collins, Snowe
Town of Rockingham, VT.................  For Rockingham Community Recreation Center.................................................           400,000  Senator Sanders
Town of Warren, Warren, RI.............  For rehabilitation and revitalization of park infrastructure to serve low-income families..           200,000  Senators Whitehouse, Reed
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa,        For the construction of a youth center to serve Native Americans on the reservation........           500,000  Senators Dorgan, Conrad
 Belcourt, ND.
Vermont Department of Buildings and      For Veterans Monuments.....................................................................           250,000  Senator Sanders
 Services, VT.
Vermont Housing & Conservation Board,    For projects throughout the State of Vermont to enhance affordable housing and community            4,000,000  Senator Leahy
 Montpelier, VT.                          development linked with land conservation and historic preservation.
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,  For Vergennes Senior Housing Project.......................................................           400,000  Senator Sanders
 VT.
Volunteers of America--Dakotas, Sioux    For construction of a new facility to house a residential substance treatment center for              500,000  Senator Thune
 Falls, SD.                               women and their children and for other services.
Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc.,   For construction of housing along Alabama's Katrina-decimated Gulf Coast...................         1,400,000  Senator Sessions
 Mobile, AL.
Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in      For waterproofing activities in basement-level storage areas...............................           700,000  Senators Dodd, Lieberman
 Hartford, CT.
WECRD, Mountain Home, ID...............  For planning, design, and construction of an energy efficient, multi-use, community                   300,000  Senator Craig
                                          facility.
West Oregon Electric Cooperative,        For restoration of services................................................................           500,000  Senators Wyden, Smith
 Vernonia, OR.
Wick Neighbors, Inc. Youngstown, OH....  For replacing and improving existing infrastructure around the Wick neighborhood in                   700,000  Senator Brown
                                          Youngstown, OH to promote economic development.
Wilmington Housing Authority,            For exterior facade repair of fire damage to low-income housing............................           500,000  Senators Biden, Carper
 Wilmington, DE.
Winrock International, Little Rock, AR.  For support of the Winrock International Regional Entrepreneur Assistance Program..........           400,000  Senators Lincoln, Pryor
Woodward Industrial Foundation,          For construction of a multi-purpose community campus.......................................           200,000  Senator Inhofe
 Woodward, OK.
World Trade Center of St. Louis, MO....  For the construction of a commercialization center.........................................         1,000,000  Senator Bond
YMCA of Eastern Union County,            For renovation of social services facilities...............................................           300,000  Senator Lautenberg
 Elizabeth, NJ.
YMCA of Pawtucket, Pawtucket, RI.......  For purchase of equipment to expand and improve the quality and quantity of community                 300,000  Senators Whitehouse, Reed
                                          services for low and moderate income families.
YWCA of Northwest Georgia, Inc.,         For housing programs and staff which assist women, men and children who are survivors of              500,000  Senator Isakson
 Marietta, GA.                            domestic violence and sexual assault.
YWCA Seattle-King Co-Snohomish County,   For the improvement of the 3 housing projects acquired recently to expand the YWCA                    400,000  Senator Murray
 Seattle WA.                              Snohomish County Regional Housing Network.
YWCA, Spokane, WA......................  For the creation of Youth Development program space complete with fixtures, furnishings and           500,000  Senator Murray
                                          equipment.
YWCA, Yakima, WA.......................  For infrastructure improvements to Bringing It Home, Central Washington's largest domestic          1,000,000  Senator Murray
                                          violence facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                    NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Grantee                                                            Project                                                 Funding                       Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Charities Housing Services,     For the education of Hispanic communities regarding homeownership..........................          $800,000  Senator Murray
 Yakima, WA.
Center for Planning Excellence, LA.....  For phase II of comprehensive planning for land use, transportation, and economic                     200,000  Senator Landrieu
                                          development in parishes and municipalities in Louisiana.
City of Racine, WI, Redevelopment        For demolition of blighted buildings and vacant parcels, street beautification and                  1,000,000  Senator Kohl
 Authority.                               restoration of a station platform at the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad depot.
City of Spokane, WA....................  For homeless rapid rehousing activities....................................................           150,000  Senator Murray
City of Vancouver, WA..................  For road and rail system improvements to reconnect Vancouver to the Columbia River.........         3,000,000  Senators Murray, Cantwell
City of Waterbury, CT..................  For a plan to clean polluted and blighted properties and market them for suitable                   1,000,000  Senator Dodd
                                          redevelopment.
Covenant House Alaska Crisis Center,     For relocation and expansion...............................................................           350,000  Senator Murkowski
 Anchorage, AK.
Harbor Homes, Nashua, NH...............  For two new supportive housing programs for honorably discharged homeless veterans.........           500,000  Senators Sununu, Gregg
Missisippi State University, MS........  For a Civic Capacity Development Initiative................................................         1,000,000  Senators Cochran, Wicker
Nevada Fair Housing Center, Las Vegas,   For purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties...................................           850,000  Senator Reid
 NV.
Patrick F. Taylor Foundation, New        For the acquisition, renovation and construction of affordable housing in the Greater New             200,000  Senator Vitter
 Orleans, LA.                             Orleans area.
St. Louis County Economic Council, St.   For the planning and design for the Lemay Community Center.................................           500,000  Senator Bond
 Louis, MO.
Tiverton Library Services, Tiverton, RI  For land acquisition to build a new public library.........................................           500,000  Senator Reed
Village of Columbus, NM................  For the renovation of the former Columbus Elementary school building to house a multi-              1,000,000  Senator Bingaman
                                          purpose community facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2009
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2008         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2008
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses.........................................           91,782           101,782            98,500            +6,718            -3,282
    Immediate Office of the Secretary.........................           (2,310)  ................           (2,400)             (+90)          (+2,400)
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary..................             (730)  ................             (759)             (+29)            (+759)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (18,720)  ................          (19,838)          (+1,118)         (+19,838)
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportationfor Policy.           (9,874)  ................           (9,874)  ................          (+9,874)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budgetand Programs..           (9,417)  ................          (10,400)            (+983)         (+10,400)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs           (2,383)  ................           (2,400)             (+17)          (+2,400)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......          (23,750)  ................          (26,000)          (+2,250)         (+26,000)
    Office of Public Affairs..................................           (1,986)  ................           (1,986)  ................          (+1,986)
    Office of the Executive Secretariat.......................           (1,516)  ................           (1,595)             (+79)          (+1,595)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....           (1,335)  ................           (1,369)             (+34)          (+1,369)
    Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response..           (7,874)  ................           (8,994)          (+1,120)          (+8,994)
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................          (11,887)  ................          (12,885)            (+998)         (+12,885)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           91,782           101,782            98,500            +6,718            -3,282

Financial management capital..................................  ................            6,000             5,000            +5,000            -1,000
Office of Civil Rights........................................            9,141             9,384             9,384              +243   ................
Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers............          -22,000            -1,000            -1,000           +21,000   ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............           13,884            10,105            12,750            -1,134            +2,645
Working capital fund..........................................         (128,094)  ................         (128,094)  ................        (+128,094)
Minority business resource center program.....................              893               912               912               +19   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (18,367)          (18,367)          (18,367)  ................  ................
Minority business outreach....................................            2,970             3,056             3,056               +86   ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)........           60,000   ................           60,000   ................          +60,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of the Secretary..........................          156,670           130,239           188,602           +31,932           +58,363

                Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................        8,740,000   ................        9,070,238          +330,238        +9,070,238
    Air traffic organization..................................       (6,966,193)  ................       (7,119,031)        (+152,838)      (+7,119,031)
    Aviation safety...........................................       (1,081,602)  ................       (1,162,927)         (+81,325)      (+1,162,927)
    Commercial space transportation...........................          (12,549)  ................          (14,094)          (+1,545)         (+14,094)
    Financial services........................................         (100,593)  ................         (112,004)         (+11,411)        (+112,004)
    Human resource management.................................          (91,214)  ................          (96,091)          (+4,877)         (+96,091)
    Region and center operations..............................         (286,848)  ................         (336,894)         (+50,046)        (+336,894)
    Staff offices.............................................         (162,351)  ................         (180,859)         (+18,508)        (+180,859)
    Information services......................................          (38,650)  ................          (48,338)          (+9,688)         (+48,338)
Safety and operations (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).........  ................        2,052,094   ................  ................       -2,052,094
Air traffic organization(Airport & Airway Trust Fund).........  ................        9,669,878   ................  ................       -9,669,878
Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund)..........        2,513,611   ................        2,749,595          +235,984        +2,749,595

Research, engineering, and development:
    Airport and Airway Trust Fund.............................          146,828           156,003           171,000           +24,172           +14,997
    General Fund..............................................  ................           15,025   ................  ................          -15,025
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          146,828           171,028           171,000           +24,172               -28

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)           (4,399,000)       (3,600,000)       (3,600,000)        (-799,000)  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................       (3,514,500)       (2,750,000)       (3,515,000)            (+500)        (+765,000)
    Small community air service development program...........          (10,000)  ................  ................         (-10,000)  ................
    Administration............................................          (80,676)          (87,454)          (87,454)          (+6,778)  ................
    Airport Cooperative Research Program......................          (10,000)          (15,000)          (15,000)          (+5,000)  ................
    Airport technology research...............................          (18,712)          (19,348)          (19,348)            (+636)  ................
    Rescission of contract authority (BY AIP).................         -270,500   ................          -75,000          +195,500           -75,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (3,244,000)       (2,750,000)       (3,440,000)        (+196,000)        (+690,000)

War risk insurance program extension..........................         -120,000   ................  ................         +120,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Aviation Administration..................       11,009,939        11,893,000        11,915,833          +905,894           +22,833
          Appropriations......................................      (11,280,439)      (11,893,000)      (11,990,833)        (+710,394)         (+97,833)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................        (-270,500)  ................         (-75,000)        (+195,500)         (-75,000)
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (3,514,500)       (2,750,000)       (3,515,000)            (+500)        (+765,000)
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (14,524,439)      (14,643,000)      (15,430,833)        (+906,394)        (+787,833)

                Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses.........................         (377,556)         (394,880)         (390,000)         (+12,444)          (-4,880)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
    (Liquidation of contract authorization)...................      (41,955,051)      (39,500,000)      (40,000,000)      (-1,955,051)        (+500,000)
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................      (40,216,051)      (39,398,728)      (41,199,970)        (+983,919)      (+1,801,242)
    (Limitation on obligations)--bridges......................       (1,000,000)  ................  ................      (-1,000,000)  ................
    (Exempt contract authority)...............................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
Appalachian development highway system........................           15,680   ................           10,000            -5,680           +10,000
Delta Regional Authority......................................           14,014   ................  ................          -14,014   ................
Denali Access System..........................................  ................  ................            6,000            +6,000            +6,000
Surface Transportation projects...............................  ................  ................          182,695          +182,695          +182,695
I-35W bridge repair and reconstruction (emergency                       195,000   ................  ................         -195,000   ................
 appropriations)..............................................
Rescission of contract authority (Highway Trust Fund).........       -3,150,000        -3,150,000        -3,150,000   ................  ................
Rescission of ISTEA contract authority (HTF)..................           -1,292          -109,000          -284,000          -282,708          -175,000
Rescission of TEA-21 contract authority (HTF).................           -5,987          -626,000          -626,000          -620,013   ................
TIFIA (rescission of contract authority) (Sec. 124)...........         -256,806   ................  ................         +256,806   ................
Administration (rescission of contract authority) (Sec. 125)..          -43,359   ................          -33,401            +9,958           -33,401
Research (rescission of contract authority) (Sec. 126)........         -239,802   ................          -11,757          +228,045           -11,757
Highway related safety grants (rescission) (Sec. 127).........              -11   ................  ................              +11   ................
Miscellaneous appropriations and miscellaneous highway trust             -4,754   ................  ................           +4,754   ................
 funds (rescission) (Sec. 128)................................
2008 rescission of revenue-aligned budget authority (Sec. 129)         -370,488   ................  ................         +370,488   ................
Rescission of discretionary contract authority................          -39,350   ................  ................          +39,350   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Highway Administration...................       -3,887,155        -3,885,000        -3,906,463           -19,308           -21,463
          Appropriations......................................          (29,694)  ................         (198,695)        (+169,001)        (+198,695)
          Rescissions.........................................          (-4,765)  ................  ................          (+4,765)  ................
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-4,107,084)      (-3,885,000)      (-4,105,158)          (+1,926)        (-220,158)
          Emergency appropriations............................         (195,000)  ................  ................        (-195,000)  ................
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (41,216,051)      (39,398,728)      (41,199,970)         (-16,081)      (+1,801,242)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (38,067,896)      (36,252,728)      (38,032,507)         (-35,389)      (+1,779,779)

          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust            (229,654)         (234,000)         (234,000)          (+4,346)  ................
 Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization)................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (229,654)         (234,000)         (234,000)          (+4,346)  ................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation          (300,000)         (307,000)         (307,000)          (+7,000)  ................
 of contract authorization)...................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (300,000)         (307,000)         (307,000)          (+7,000)  ................
National motor carrier safety program (HTF) (rescission of               -5,213   ................          -14,904            -9,691           -14,904
 contract authority)..........................................
Motor carrier safety (HTF) (rescission of contract authority).          -32,188   ................           -1,390           +30,798            -1,390
Motor carrier safety grants (HTF) (rescission of contract               -11,260   ................           -4,231            +7,029            -4,231
 authority)...................................................
Motor carrier safety operations and programs (HTF) (rescission           -1,816   ................           -4,887            -3,071            -4,887
 of contract authority).......................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin...............          -50,477   ................          -25,412           +25,065           -25,412
          Rescissions of contract authority...................          -50,477   ................          -25,412           +25,065           -25,412
          (Limitations on obligations)........................         (529,654)         (541,000)         (541,000)         (+11,346)  ................
      Total budgetary resources...............................         (479,177)         (541,000)         (515,588)         (+36,411)         (-25,412)

        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research (general fund)........................          126,572   ................          126,000              -572          +126,000
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of           (107,750)         (105,500)         (105,500)          (-2,250)  ................
 contract authorization)......................................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................         (107,750)         (105,500)         (105,500)          (-2,250)  ................
Operations and Research (HTF)(legislative proposal)             ................         (122,000)  ................  ................        (-122,000)
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations)...............................  ................         (122,000)  ................  ................        (-122,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Operations and research.......................         (234,322)         (227,500)         (231,500)          (-2,822)          (+4,000)

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)                     (599,250)         (619,500)         (619,500)         (+20,250)  ................
 (Liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (Limitation on obligations):
        Highway safety programs (23 USC 402)..................         (225,000)         (235,000)         (235,000)         (+10,000)  ................
        Occupant protection incentive grants (23 USC 405).....          (25,000)          (25,000)          (25,000)  ................  ................
        Safety belt performance grants (23 USC 406)...........         (124,500)         (124,500)         (124,500)  ................  ................
        State traffic safety information system improvement             (34,500)          (34,500)          (34,500)  ................  ................
         grants (23 USC 408)..................................
        Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (23            (131,000)         (139,000)         (139,000)          (+8,000)  ................
         USC 410).............................................
        High visibility enforcement...........................          (29,000)          (29,000)          (29,000)  ................  ................
        Child safety and booster seat grants..................           (6,000)           (7,000)           (7,000)          (+1,000)  ................
        Motorcyclist safety...................................           (6,000)           (7,000)           (7,000)          (+1,000)  ................
        Grant administration..................................          (18,250)          (18,500)          (18,500)            (+250)  ................
Operations and research (rescission of contract authority)              -12,197   ................           -1,315           +10,882            -1,315
 (sec. 141)...................................................
National driver register (rescission of contract authority)                -120   ................             -534              -414              -534
 (sec. 142)...................................................
Highway traffic safety grants (rescission of contract                   -10,529   ................          -50,000           -39,471           -50,000
 authority) (sec. 143)........................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................         (580,404)         (623,500)         (571,651)          (-8,753)         (-51,849)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin............          103,726   ................           74,151           -29,575           +74,151
          Appropriations......................................         (126,572)  ................         (126,000)            (-572)        (+126,000)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................         (-22,846)  ................         (-51,849)         (-29,003)         (-51,849)
          (Limitations on obligations)........................         (711,000)         (851,000)         (729,000)         (+18,000)        (-122,000)
      Total budgetary resources...............................         (814,726)         (851,000)         (803,151)         (-11,575)         (-47,849)

                Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations.........................................          150,193           156,745           158,745            +8,552            +2,000
Railroad research and development.............................           35,964            33,950            34,000            -1,964               +50
Capital assistance to States--Intercity Passenger Rail Service           30,000   ................          100,000           +70,000          +100,000
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program (leg proposal).........  ................          100,000   ................  ................         -100,000
Rail line relocation and improvement program..................           
20,145   ................           20,000              -145           +20,000

            National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Operating grants to the National Railroad Passenger                     475,000   ................          550,000           +75,000          +550,000
 Corporation..................................................
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.          850,000           525,000         1,000,000          +150,000          +475,000
Efficiency incentive grants to National Railroad Passenger      ................          275,000   ................  ................         -275,000
 Corporation..................................................
Efficiency incentive grants to the National Railroad Passenger  ................  ................          -46,800           -46,800           -46,800
 Corporation (rescission).....................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation..........        1,325,000           800,000         1,503,200          +178,200          +703,200
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Railroad Administration..................        1,561,302         1,090,695         1,815,945          +254,643          +725,250

                Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................           89,300            94,413            93,000            +3,700            -1,413

Formula and Bus Grants (Hwy Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account         (6,855,000)       (8,670,000)       (8,670,000)      (+1,815,000)  ................
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
    (limitation on obligations)...............................       (7,767,887)       (8,360,565)       (8,260,565)        (+492,678)        (-100,000)
    Rescission of prior year contract authority (HTF).........          -28,661   ................  ................          +28,661   ................
    Rescission of current year contract authority.............         -105,006   ................         -100,000            +5,006          -100,000
    Flexible funding..........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (7,634,220)       (8,360,565)       (8,160,565)        (+526,345)        (-200,000)
      Subtotal (obligational authority).......................       (7,767,887)       (8,360,565)       (8,260,565)        (+492,678)        (-100,000)

Research and University Research Centers......................           65,363            59,600            63,000            -2,363            +3,400
Trust fund share of expenses (Mass Transit Account, HTF)             (6,855,000)       (8,670,000)       (8,670,000)      (+1,815,000)  ................
 (liquidation of contract authorization)......................
Capital investment grants.....................................        1,569,092         1,620,829         1,809,250          +240,158          +188,421
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Transit Administration...................        1,590,088         1,774,842         1,865,250          +275,162           +90,408
          Appropriations......................................        1,723,755         1,774,842         1,965,250          +241,495          +190,408
          Rescissions of contract authority...................         -133,667   ................         -100,000           +33,667          -100,000
          (Limitations on obligations)........................       (7,767,887)       (8,360,565)       (8,260,565)        (+492,678)        (-100,000)
      Total budgetary resources...............................       (9,491,642)      (10,135,407)      (10,225,815)        (+734,173)         (+90,408)

         Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)....           17,392            31,842            27,000            +9,608            -4,842

                    Maritime Administration

Maritime security program.....................................          156,000           174,000           174,000           +18,000   ................
Operations and training.......................................          121,992           117,848           123,560            +1,568            +5,712
Ship disposal.................................................           17,000            18,000            15,000            -2,000            -3,000
Assistance to small shipyards.................................           10,000   ................           20,000           +10,000           +20,000
Vessel operations revolving fund..............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
War risk insurance revolving fund.............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account:
    Administrative expenses...................................            3,408             3,531             3,531              +123   ................
    Guarantee loans subsidy...................................            5,000   ................           10,000            +5,000           +10,000
Ship construction (rescission)................................           -6,673   ................           -1,382            +5,291            -1,382
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Maritime Administration..........................          306,727           313,379           344,709           +37,982           +31,330
          Appropriations......................................         (313,400)         (313,379)         (346,091)         (+32,691)         (+32,712)
          Rescissions.........................................          (-6,673)  ................          (-1,382)          (+5,291)          (-1,382)

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous materials safety....................................           28,000            28,000            28,000   ................  ................
Administrative expenses.......................................           17,491   ................  ................          -17,491   ................
Pipeline Safety information grants to Communities.............  ................  ................            1,000            +1,000            +1,000
Operations....................................................  ................           17,491            17,491           +17,491   ................
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................              639               639               639   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (18,130)          (18,130)          (19,130)          (+1,000)          (+1,000)

Pipeline safety:
    Pipeline Safety Fund......................................           61,018            74,481            74,481           +13,463   ................
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................           18,810            18,810            18,810   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          (79,828)          (93,291)          (93,291)         (+13,463)  ................

Emergency preparedness grants:
    Emergency preparedness fund...............................              188               188               188   ................  ................
    Limitation on emergency preparedness fund.................          (28,318)          (28,318)          (28,318)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety                    154,464           167,927           168,927           +14,463            +1,000
       Administration.........................................

       Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and development......................................           12,000            12,000            12,000   ................  ................

                  Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses.........................................           66,400            70,468            72,200            +5,800            +1,732

                 Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses.........................................           26,325            23,085            26,847              +522            +3,762
    Offsetting collections....................................           -1,250            -1,250            -1,250   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Surface Transportation Board.....................           25,075            21,835            25,597              +522            +3,762

Rescission of disc. contract authority (Sec. 186).............          -68,799   ................  ................          +68,799   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Transportation............       10,969,034        11,592,909        12,550,021        +1,580,987          +957,112
          Appropriations......................................      (15,460,845)      (15,478,909)      (16,956,622)      (+1,495,777)      (+1,477,713)
          Rescissions.........................................         (-33,438)          (-1,000)         (-49,182)         (-15,744)         (-48,182)
          Rescission of contract authority....................      (-4,653,373)      (-3,885,000)      (-4,357,419)        (+295,954)        (-472,419)
          Emergency appropriations............................         (195,000)  ................  ................        (-195,000)  ................
          (Limitations on obligations)........................      (53,739,092)      (51,901,293)      (54,245,535)        (+506,443)      (+2,344,242)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
      Total budgetary resources...............................      (64,708,126)      (63,494,202)      (66,795,556)      (+2,087,430)      (+3,301,354)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Title I, non-emergency discretionary total)............      (10,774,034)      (11,592,909)      (12,550,021)      (+1,775,987)        (+957,112)
                                                               =========================================================================================

     TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                 Management and Administration

Executive direction...........................................           24,980   ................           24,791              -189           +24,791
    Office of the Secretary...................................           (3,930)  ................           (4,047)            (+117)          (+4,047)
    Office of Hearings and Appeals............................           (1,580)  ................           (1,681)            (+101)          (+1,681)
    Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization....             (510)  ................             (567)             (+57)            (+567)
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer.....................             (725)  ................             (750)             (+25)            (+750)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................           (1,155)  ................           (1,580)            (+425)          (+1,580)
    Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional and                  (2,670)  ................           (2,829)            (+159)          (+2,829)
     Intergovernmental Relations..............................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs......           (2,520)  ................           (2,695)            (+175)          (+2,695)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration......           (1,630)  ................           (1,047)            (-583)          (+1,047)
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian              (1,620)  ................           (1,669)             (+49)          (+1,669)
     Housing..................................................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning             (1,520)  ................           (1,779)            (+259)          (+1,779)
     and Development..........................................
    Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing                      (3,600)  ................           (3,936)            (+336)          (+3,936)
     Commissioner.............................................
    Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and             (1,570)  ................           (1,491)             (-79)          (+1,491)
     Research.................................................
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and               (1,950)  ................             (720)          (-1,230)            (+720)
     Equal Opportunity........................................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................           24,980   ................           24,791              -189           +24,791

Administration, operations, and management....................          493,630           546,218           527,434           +33,804           -18,784
    Office of Administration..................................          (69,070)  ................          (75,510)          (+6,440)         (+75,510)
    Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination........          (10,630)  ................          (11,004)            (+374)         (+11,004)
    Office of Field Policy and Management.....................          (51,300)  ................          (48,817)          (-2,483)         (+48,817)
    Office of Chief Procurement Officer.......................          (12,370)  ................          (13,438)          (+1,068)         (+13,438)
    Office of Chief Financial Officer.........................          (31,600)  ................          (34,029)          (+2,429)         (+34,029)
    Office of the General Counsel.............................          (80,670)  ................          (84,837)          (+4,167)         (+84,837)
    Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity.......           (2,810)  ................           (3,085)            (+275)          (+3,085)
    Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives..........           (1,160)  ................           (1,215)             (+55)          (+1,215)
    Department non-personnel expenses.........................         (234,020)  ................         (255,497)         (+21,477)        (+255,497)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          493,630           546,218           527,434           +33,804           -18,784

Personnel compensation and benefits:
    Public and Indian Housing.................................          173,310           190,340           190,390           +17,080               +50
    Community Planning and Development........................           90,310            95,035            94,234            +3,924              -801
    Housing...................................................          334,450           354,299           363,198           +28,748            +8,899
    Office of the Government National Mortgage Association....            8,250             8,559            10,000            +1,750            +1,441
    Policy Development and Research...........................           16,950            19,829            18,071            +1,121            -1,758
    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity........................           63,140            67,905            69,021            +5,881            +1,116
    Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control...........            6,980             7,815             6,728              -252            -1,087
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................          693,390           743,782           751,642           +58,252            +7,860
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................        1,212,000         1,290,000         1,303,867           +91,867           +13,867

                   Public and Indian Housing

Tenant-based Rental Assistance:
    Renewals..................................................       14,701,000        14,327,000        14,827,000          +126,000          +500,000
    Tenant protection vouchers................................          200,000           150,000           200,000   ................          +50,000
    Family self-sufficiency coordinators......................           49,000            48,000            50,000            +1,000            +2,000
    Administrative fees.......................................        1,351,000         1,400,000         1,450,000           +99,000           +50,000
    Incremental family unification vouchers...................           20,000   ................           20,000   ................          +20,000
    Veterans affairs supportive housing.......................           75,000            75,000            75,000   ................  ................
    Nonelderly disabled incremental vouchers..................           30,000   ................  ................          -30,000   ................
    Disaster Displacement Assistance Program..................  ................           39,000            39,000           +39,000   ................
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-6,494)          (-7,929)          (-7,929)          (-1,435)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       16,426,000        16,039,000        16,661,000          +235,000          +622,000

    Advance appropriations....................................        4,158,000         4,000,000         4,200,000           +42,000          +200,000
    Less appropriations from prior year advances..............       -4,193,000        -4,158,000        -4,158,000           +35,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Tenant-based rental assistance...................       16,391,000        15,881,000        16,703,000          +312,000          +822,000

Project-based rental assistance:
    Renewals..................................................        6,143,082         6,768,000         6,468,000          +324,918          -300,000
    Contract administrators...................................          238,728           232,000           232,000            -6,728   ................
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-3,960)          (-5,000)         (-10,000)          (-6,040)          (-5,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................        6,381,810         7,000,000         6,700,000          +318,190          -300,000

    Advance appropriations....................................  ................          400,000         1,750,200        +1,750,200        +1,350,200
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Project-based rental assistance..................        6,381,810         7,400,000         8,450,200        +2,068,390        +1,050,200

Public Housing Capital Fund...................................        2,438,964         2,024,000         2,444,000            +5,036          +420,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................         (-16,847)         (-14,577)         (-14,577)          (+2,270)  ................
Public Housing Operating Fund.................................        4,200,000         4,300,000         4,400,000          +200,000          +100,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing..........          100,000   ................          100,000   ................         +100,000
Native American housing block grants..........................          630,000           627,000           650,000           +20,000           +23,000
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account............            7,450             9,000             9,000            +1,550   ................
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (367,000)         (420,000)         (420,000)         (+53,000)  ................
Native Hawaiian housing block grant...........................            9,000             5,940            10,000            +1,000            +4,060
Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account...........            1,044   ................            1,044   ................           +1,044
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................          (41,504)  ................          (41,504)  ................         (+41,504)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Public and Indian Housing........................       30,159,268        30,246,940        32,767,244        +2,607,976        +2,520,304

              Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS...................          300,100           300,100           315,100           +15,000           +15,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-1,485)          (-1,750)          (-1,750)            (-265)  ................
Rural housing and economic development........................           17,000   ................           30,000           +13,000           +30,000
Community development fund....................................        3,865,800         3,000,000         3,889,465           +23,665          +889,465
    Road Home (Public Law 110-116, Div B) (Sec. 159)                  3,000,000   ................  ................       -3,000,000   ................
     (emergency)..............................................
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-1,570)          (-3,175)          (-3,175)          (-1,605)  ................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................         (205,000)  ................         (275,000)         (+70,000)        (+275,000)
    Credit subsidy............................................            4,500   ................            6,000            +1,500            +6,000
Brownfields redevelopment.....................................           10,000   ................  ................          -10,000   ................
HOME investment partnerships program..........................        1,704,000         1,966,640         1,966,640          +262,640   ................
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-3,465)          (-4,200)          (-4,200)            (-735)  ................
Self-help homeownership opportunity program...................           60,000            40,000            66,000            +6,000           +26,000
Homeless assistance grants....................................        1,585,990         1,636,000         1,667,000           +81,010           +31,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-2,475)          (-2,675)          (-2,675)            (-200)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community Planning and Development...............       10,547,390         6,942,740         7,940,205        -2,607,185          +997,465

                       Housing Programs

Housing for the elderly.......................................          735,000           540,000           765,000           +30,000          +225,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................          (-1,400)          (-1,600)          (-1,600)            (-200)  ................
Housing for persons with disabilities.........................          237,000           160,000           250,000           +13,000           +90,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................            (-600)          (-1,600)          (-1,600)          (-1,000)  ................
Housing counseling assistance.................................  ................           65,000            65,000           +65,000   ................
Manufactured housing fees trust fund..........................           16,000            16,000            16,000   ................  ................
    Offsetting collections....................................          -16,000           -16,000           -16,000   ................  ................
    General fund payment to trust fund........................  ................            5,400             5,400            +5,400   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................  ................            5,400             5,400            +5,400   ................

Rental housing assistance.....................................           27,600            27,600            27,600   ................  ................
    Rent supplement (rescission)..............................          -37,600           -27,600           -37,600   ................          -10,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Housing Programs.................................          962,000           770,400         1,075,400          +113,400          +305,000

                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)  ................  ................
    Move single-family prog from GSRI (leg proposal)..........  ................           10,000   ................  ................          -10,000
    Administrative contract expenses..........................           77,400           116,000           140,000           +62,600           +24,000
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................         (-25,550)         (-46,794)         (-70,794)         (-45,244)         (-24,000)
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)  ................  ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -230,000          -140,000          -140,000           +90,000   ................
    Credit subsidy............................................            8,600             8,600             8,600   ................  ................
    Right of first refusal....................................            5,000   ................  ................           -5,000   ................
    Administrative contract expenses..........................           78,111            47,871            47,871           -30,240   ................
    Consumer education and outreach...........................  ................            1,000             1,000            +1,000   ................
    Additional contract expenses..............................  ................           14,400            14,000           +14,000              -400
    Move single-family prog to MMI (leg proposal).............  ................          -10,000   ................  ................          +10,000
    Administrative fee increase...............................          -20,000   ................  ................          +20,000   ................
    Working capital fund (transfer out).......................         (-15,692)  ................  ................         (+15,692)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration...................          -80,889            47,871            71,471          +152,360           +23,600

        Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee
 program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)..........................     (200,000,000)     (200,000,000)     (200,000,000)  ................  ................
    Consolidate admin expenses (leg proposal).................  ................          (43,000)  ................  ................         (-43,000)
    Offsetting receipts.......................................         -163,000          -170,000          -170,000            -7,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Gov't National Mortgage Association..............         -163,000          -170,000          -170,000            -7,000   ................

                Policy Development and Research

Research and technology.......................................           51,440            54,700            59,624            +8,184            +4,924

              Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities.......................................           50,000            51,000            56,000            +6,000            +5,000

        Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction.........................................          145,000           116,000           145,000   ................          +29,000

                 Management and Administration

GSE regulator/HUD oversight (legislative proposal)............  ................           -4,000   ................  ................           +4,000
Working capital fund..........................................          155,000           224,000           200,000           +45,000           -24,000
    (By transfer).............................................          (79,538)          (89,300)         (118,300)         (+38,762)         (+29,000)
Office of Inspector General...................................          112,000           115,000           115,000            +3,000   ................
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight................           66,000            66,600            66,600              +600   ................
    Offsetting receipts.......................................          -66,000           -66,600           -66,600              -600   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Management and Administration....................          267,000           335,000           315,000           +48,000           -20,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Grand total, Management and Administration)............       (1,479,000)       (1,625,000)       (1,618,867)        (+139,867)          (-6,133)

Rescissions and Adjustments:
    Housing certificate fund..................................       -1,250,000   ................  ................       +1,250,000   ................
    Fiscal year 2008 advance appropriation (rescission).......         -723,257   ................         -800,000           -76,743          -800,000
    Community Development Fund................................  ................         -205,800   ................  ................         +205,800
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       -1,973,257          -205,800          -800,000        +1,173,257          -594,200

FHA Proposals:
    Remove HECM cap (fiscal year 2009 legislative proposal)...         -512,000          -391,000          -391,000          +121,000   ................
    Increase single family loan limit (leg proposal)..........  ................          -12,000            -9,000            -9,000            +3,000
    Increase multifamily loan limit...........................          -28,000   ................  ................          +28,000   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban               40,636,952        39,075,851        42,363,811        +1,726,859        +3,287,960
       Development............................................
          Appropriations......................................      (36,524,809)      (35,708,851)      (38,043,811)      (+1,519,002)      (+2,334,960)
          Rescissions.........................................      (-2,010,857)        (-233,400)        (-837,600)      (+1,173,257)        (-604,200)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,158,000)       (4,400,000)       (5,950,200)      (+1,792,200)      (+1,550,200)
          Emergency appropriations............................       (3,000,000)  ................  ................      (-3,000,000)  ................
          Offsetting receipts.................................        (-953,000)        (-717,000)        (-710,000)        (+243,000)          (+7,000)
          Offsetting collections..............................         (-82,000)         (-82,600)         (-82,600)            (-600)  ................
          (By transfer).......................................          (79,538)          (89,300)         (118,300)         (+38,762)         (+29,000)
          (Transfer out)......................................         (-79,538)         (-89,300)        (-118,300)         (-38,762)         (-29,000)
          (Limitation on direct loans)........................         (100,000)         (100,000)         (100,000)  ................  ................
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans)....................     (430,613,504)     (420,420,000)     (430,736,504)        (+123,000)     (+10,316,504)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Title II, non-emergency discretionary total).......      (37,636,952)      (39,075,851)      (42,363,811)      (+4,726,859)      (+3,287,960)
                                                               =========================================================================================
             TITLE III--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board....            6,150             6,447             6,550              +400              +103
Federal Maritime Commission...................................           22,072            23,953            23,949            +1,877                -4
National Transportation Safety Board:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................           84,499            87,891            91,000            +6,501            +3,109
    Rescission of unobligated balances........................  ................             -671              -671              -671   ................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.........................          299,800           150,000           156,000          -143,800            +6,000
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.............            2,150             2,660             2,660              +510   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies............          414,671           270,280           279,488          -135,183            +9,208
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Grand total (net).......................................       52,020,657        50,939,040        55,193,320        +3,172,663        +4,254,280
          Appropriations......................................      (56,593,325)      (55,616,711)      (59,438,592)      (+2,845,267)      (+3,821,881)
          Rescissions.........................................      (-2,022,295)        (-234,071)        (-886,453)      (+1,135,842)        (-652,382)
          Rescissions of contract authority...................      (-4,653,373)      (-3,885,000)      (-4,357,419)        (+295,954)        (-472,419)
          Advance appropriations..............................       (4,158,000)       (4,400,000)       (5,950,200)      (+1,792,200)      (+1,550,200)
          Emergency appropriations............................       (3,195,000)  ................  ................      (-3,195,000)  ................
          Negative subsidy receipts...........................        (-953,000)        (-717,000)        (-710,000)        (+243,000)          (+7,000)
          Offsetting collections..............................         (-82,000)         (-82,600)         (-82,600)            (-600)  ................
          (Limitation on obligations).........................      (53,739,092)      (51,901,293)      (54,245,535)        (+506,443)      (+2,344,242)
          (Exempt contract authority).........................         (739,000)         (739,000)         (739,000)  ................  ................
      Total budgetary resources...............................     (105,759,749)     (102,840,333)     (109,438,855)      (+3,679,106)      (+6,598,522)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



