43–429 PDF 

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 

R E P O R T 

[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 
(2) 

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 Senate .......................................................................................................................... 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 
(3) 

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 
4 

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 
5 

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. 
(6) 

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 
7 

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 

recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 request 

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 
8 

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. 
9 

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 
10 

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. 
11 

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 re- quest 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, 
12 

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. 
13 

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 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Assessment of Critical Transportation Infrastructure, MS .................................................................................. $750,000 

Decision Support Tools for Transportation Resilience and Security, MS ............................................................ 750,000 

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 

1Proposed 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. 
14 

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

Appropriations Limitation on 

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. 
15 

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 Departmentwide 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 pur- suant 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 socalled ‘‘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, 
16 

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] 

Last date of service in 2008 Tentative projected 

start of new service 

Estimated no. 

of months dark Incoming carrier/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 
17 

EAS COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCING SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS AND SHUTDOWNS—Continued 

[As of June 20, 2008] 

Last date of service in 2008 Tentative projected 

start of new service 

Estimated no. 

of months dark Incoming carrier/status 

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. 
18 

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. 
19 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 

[Data based on June 1, 2008 rates and CY 2007 passengers] 

States/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/07) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

6/1/2008 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/07) Hub 

Est. no. of 

months in 

2008 with no 

service 

Notes 

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 ................... .................... ....................
20 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data based on June 1, 2008 rates and CY 2007 passengers] 

States/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/07) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

6/1/2008 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/07) Hub 

Est. no. of 

months in 

2008 with no 

service 

Notes 

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 ) 
21 

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 ................... .................... ....................
22 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER—Continued 

[Data based on June 1, 2008 rates and CY 2007 passengers] 

States/communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/07) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

6/1/2008 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/07) Hub 

Est. no. of 

months in 

2008 with no 

service 

Notes 

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 ..................... .................... ....................
23 

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. 
24 

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 
25 

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 
26 

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 recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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 bal-
27 

ance 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 recommendation 

enacted 

2009 

estimate 

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 In-
28 

spector 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 
29 

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. 
30 

Report title Date issued Open recommendation(s) 

Review of Air Carriers’ Use of Aircraft Repair Stations ........................................................ 7/8/2003 Develop a process to: (a) identify repair stations that air carriers use to perform aircraft 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 Program .............................................................................. 6/2/2004 Develop an assessment process for identifying a new controller’s potential to certify at a 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 Center Computer Systems ......................................... 8/9/2004 Enable and enforce use of passwords to authenticate users of Air Traffic Control 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 Controller Pilot Data Link Communications [CPDLC] Program. 9/30/2004 Implement a process by which FAA and industry agree on entrance and exit criteria of joint programs that require synchronized government and industry investment, should FAA start another CPDLC 

program. 

Review of FAA’s Terminal Automation Alternatives ............................................................... 11/23/2004 Replace aging displays at its four large terminal sites that do not have color displays. This 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 Industry in Transition ..................................................... 6/3/2005 Establish policies and procedures to ensure national analysis and support groups provide 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 Program (OMP) .................................................... 7/21/2005 Develop a schedule that synchronizes implementation of airspace changes with airfield changes 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 Acquired Under Airport Noise Compatibility Programs. 9/30/2005 Ensure that sponsors (a) implement written, FAA-approved plans for disposing of Airport Improvement Program [AIP] funded noise land that is no longer needed for noise compatibility 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. 
31 

Disposal and Development of Properties Acquired Under Airport Noise Compatibility Programs. 9/30/2005 FAA should direct airport sponsors to develop and implement plans to recover FAA’s share (estimated at $81.7 million) of the affected land’s fair market value from airports that are misusing noise 

land disposition proceeds at 11 airports. 

Follow-up Audit-Review of Air Traffic Controller Training ..................................................... 12/7/2005 Identify specific coursework taught at the FAA Academy as part of new controller training that 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 Repair Facilities ......................................................... 12/15/2005 Inventory air carrier vendor lists that include all maintenance providers working on air 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 Maintenance Processing System [RMMS], FAA ....... 2/21/2006 Enhance the current Maintenance Process System [MPS] contingency plan to address situations in 

which the MPS computer becomes nonfunctional, including an evaluation of alternative ways to gain remote access to critical field equipment. 

Quality Control Review of the Report on Controls Over the Enterprise Service Center’s 

Delphi Financial Management System.

9/29/2006 Enterprise Services Center Management should consider implementing a security enclave that would 

separate the Delphi servers by placing the servers on their own Internet Protocol network. The access to this network should be controlled by firewalls and monitored by an 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 Controller Workforce Plan ........................................... 2/9/2007 Begin using the on-the-job-training [OJT] national database to (a) determine whether training 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 [JPDO] ..................................................................... 2/12/2007 Report Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) cost data along three vectors—developmental efforts, adjustments to existing programs, and NextGen implementation—when reporting 

NextGen financial requirements to Congress and stakeholders. 
32 

Report title Date issued Open recommendation(s) 

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 Runway Incursions at Boston Logan, Chicago O’Hare 

and Philadelphia International Airports.

5/24/2007 Require each line of business to include quantitative goals in their annual business plans for reducing runway incursion risks that are specific to their oversight responsibilities and designate the 

Runway Safety Office the authority to review and approve all runway safety initiatives submitted by all lines of business. 

FAA’s Review of Allegations of Unsafe Maintenance Practices at Northwest Airlines ......... 9/28/2007 Require the Flight Standards Service to establish better internal review procedures to ensure that 

comprehensive, independent investigations of safety allegations and recommendations are consistently performed. 

FAA’s Review of Allegations of Unsafe Maintenance Practices at Northwest Airlines ......... 10/31/2007 Develop (a) realistic cost estimates for all activities required to complete ASDE–X implementation and 

(b) a master schedule through ASDE–X completion that outlines when all 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. 
33 

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 Federal Aviation Administration’s [FAA] Financial 

Statement.

11/9/2007 Fully comply with the existing standardized policies and procedures for timely entry of transactions in 

the fixed assets subsidiary ledger to ensure that Construction in Progress [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. 
34 

Report title Date issued Open recommendation(s) 

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 for Overseeing Aircraft Manufacturers’ Suppliers. 2/26/2008 Develop a risk assessment process that emphasizes suppliers of flight-critical parts (e.g., those that manufacture critical and high-volume parts or use large numbers of suppliers, 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 Faces Challenges in Managing Ongoing Projects, 

Sustaining Existing Facilities, and Introducing New Capabilities.

4/14/2008 Develop written criteria for the selection of milestone metrics that are used for tracking progress with 

major acquisitions and reported in Agency plans and reports. 

Develop and report on a new set of metrics for measuring progress with NextGen initiatives that 

focus on the delivery of a new capability with respect to enhancing capacity, boosting 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 at DFW TRACON (Referral from the U.S. Office of 

Special Counsel).

4/18/2008 Require FAA’s Office of Air Traffic Safety Oversight [AOV]—vice the Air Traffic Organization’s Safety 

Services element [ATO-Safety]—to conduct comprehensive on-site, no-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 Collisions [NMAC] in the New York Metropolitan Airspace. 4/24/2008 Restructure the existing NMAC reporting process so that the actual safety risks posed by reported events are accurately reflected. Actions to better reflect actual safety risks could include developing a procedure to reclassify no-hazard events, redefining the NMAC criteria, or revising the term 

NMAC. 
35 

Review of the Air Traffic Controller Facility Training Program ............................................. 6/5/2008 Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual number of CPCs, CPC–ITs, and 

developmental controllers by location to provide stakeholders with an accurate representation of the controller workforce. 

Review of FAA’s Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs 

(Recommendations made in testimony before Congress, April 3, 2008.).

N/A Implement and enforce a process for second-level supervisory review of self-disclosures before they 

are accepted and closed—acceptance and closure should not rest solely with one inspector. 

Ensure that inspectors (a) verify that air carriers take comprehensive actions to correct 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. 
36 

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 DallasFort 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 
37 

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. 
38 

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 noncertified 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 experi-
39 

ence 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 
40 

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-intraining 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-byfacility. 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- 
41 

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 businesslike 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 
42 

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 pri-
43 

ority 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 
44 

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 
45 

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 
46 

Activity Amount 

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 whistleblower activities ....................................................... 200,000 

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 
47 

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 agencyimposed 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]. 
48 

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 Adminis-
49 

tration. 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 
50 

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. 
51 

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 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

estimate 

Committee 

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 Sustainment .... 4,200,000 5,400,000 5,400,000 

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 Demonstration ............................................................................................... 50,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—System Development ...... ........................ 41,400,000 41,400,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Trajectory Based Operations ............................................................................................ ........................ 39,500,000 39,500,000 
52 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 estimate Committee recommendation 

Next Generation Transportation System—Weather Reduction Impact .............................................................................................. ........................ 14,400,000 14,400,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—High Density Arrivals/Departures ........................................................................................ ........................ 18,200,000 18,200,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Collaborative ATM .......... ........................ 27,700,000 27,700,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Flexible Terminals and 

Airports ......................................................................................... ........................ 37,100,000 37,100,000 

Next Generation Transportation System—Safety Security and Environment ...................................................................................... ........................ 8,000,000 8,000,000 

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]—Relocation ................................................................................ 2,500,000 28,600,000 28,600,000 

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 Improvements .. 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 

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 Communications System [NEXCOM] ................................................ 30,400,000 46,400,000 46,400,000 

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 Terminal [ADAPT] ..................................................................... 1,600,000 ........................ ........................

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] 

(TAMR Phase 1) ................................................................... 31,200,000 28,200,000 28,200,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 

(TAMR Phase 3) ................................................................... 6,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

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] Facilities—Improve ...................................................................... 47,000,000 37,900,000 37,900,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR] ........................... 12,300,000 8,400,000 8,400,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance ..................................................................................... 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9] ........................................ 11,200,000 8,800,000 8,800,000 
53 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 estimate Committee recommendation 

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 

Measuring Equipment [DME] .............................................. 5,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 

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 Program [SLEP] ........................................................................ 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

VASI Replacement—Replace with Precision Approach Path 

Indicator .............................................................................. 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

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 Projects) ...... 3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ...................................... 9,000,000 7,400,000 7,400,000 

Aircraft Related Equipment Program—Boeing Simulator Replacement ............................................................................ 800,000 400,000 400,000 

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 
54 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 estimate Committee recommendation 

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 Depend-
55 

ent 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 
56 

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. 
57 

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 
58 

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 
59 

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. 
60 

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 
61 

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. 
62 

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 

recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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 
63 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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. 
64 

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 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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. 
65 

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 

State Airport name Project purpose Committee 

recommendation 

AK ............ Akutan ............................................................ For airport construction of a new parallel 

runway.

$1,250,000 

MI ............. Battle Creek Unlimited .................................. For construction of a new parallel runway ... 2,000,000 

VT ............. Burlington International ................................ To reconstruct the taxiway ............................ 1,000,000 

WI ............. Chippewa Valley Regional ............................. For second phase of the Terminal development.1,000,000 

MO ........... Clinton Memorial ........................................... Runway 18/36 construction .......................... 500,000 

IL .............. Dekalb Taylor Municipal ................................ To acquire land for expansion ...................... 300,000 

MS ............ Golden Triangle Regional .............................. Extension of runways and taxiways .............. 1,500,000 

MS ............ Gulfport-Biloxi International .......................... Taxiway and runway construction and rehabilitation.2,000,000 

MS ............ Jackson-Evers International .......................... Airfield infrastructure rehabilitation and replacements.1,500,000 

MI ............. Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International ........... For construction of new terminal building ... 1,700,000 

KY ............ Louisville International-Standiford Field ....... To improve runway safety areas ................... 1,000,000 

AL ............. Mobile Regional ............................................. Rehabilitation of Runway 18/36 and Taxiway 

‘‘R’’.

2,000,000 

NH ............ Mt. Washington Regional .............................. To install an instrument landing system ..... 1,000,000 

TN ............ Nashville International .................................. Reconstruction of Runway 2L–20R ............... 750,000 

IL .............. Peoria Regional ............................................. To construct a new terminal facility at Peoria Regional.1,000,000 

PA ............ Philadelphia International ............................. For runway rehabilitation .............................. 2,500,000 

NC ............ Piedmont Triad International ........................ Procurement and installation of an instrument landing system.1,000,000 

NC ............ Rowan County ................................................ For land acquisition in the existing Runway 

Protection Zone.

2,000,000 

TX ............. San Marcos Municipal ................................... For various improvements ............................. 2,000,000 

ND ............ Sloulin Field International ............................. Rehabilitation and extension of runway ....... 2,000,000 

ND ............ Grand Forks International ............................. For construction of a terminal ...................... 300,000

MO ........... Springfield-Branson National ........................ For the design, construction and rehabilitation of various runways and taxiways.2,750,000 

MS ............ Tunica Municipal ........................................... Airfield infrastructure rehabilitation and replacements.750,000 

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 
66 

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. 
67 

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 

recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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. 
68 

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. 
69 

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 
70 

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 onethird. 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] 

Fiscal year 2008 Potential fiscal 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 
71 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[Fiscal year 2008 and potential fiscal year 2009, assuming no balances are provided for the Highway Trust Fund] 

Fiscal year 2008 Potential fiscal year 2009 Difference 

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 limita- tion 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] 

Fiscal year 2008 Committee 

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 
72 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[Fiscal year 2008 and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2009] 

Fiscal year 2008 Committee recommendation Difference 

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, datadriven 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, re-
73 

quired 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 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Fiscal year 2009 

Committee 

recommendation 

Federal-Aid Highway Category Subject to Obligation Limitation: 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation ... 254 122 122 

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 
74 

ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SPENDING 

SUBJECT TO OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Fiscal year 2009 

Committee 

recommendation 

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 

Project name Committee 

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, WY .......................................................................... 2,000,000 

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 Kansas Expressway, Greene County, MO ............... 1,000,000 

I–44 Pavement Improvements from US–65 to Glenstone Avenue, MO ............................................................. 1,000,000 

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 
75 

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

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-ZPass Improvements, DE .......................................... 2,000,000

I–95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington Road, VA .................................................................. 2,000,000 

Improvements on I–90 from the Lawrence County Line to Exit 32, SD ........................................................... 2,000,000 

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, GA .......................................................................... 750,000 

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: 
76 

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS 

Project name Committee recommendation 

17-Mile Road Reconstruction, Wind River Indian Reservation, WY .................................................................... $500,000 

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 Reservation, SD ................................................................. 1,000,000 

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 Serving Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservation, SD ... 1,000,000 

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 
77 

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 

Project name Committee 

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 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

A–B Street Corridor Connector Project, WA ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Avenue of the Arts Revitalization and Streetscaping Project, PA ....................................................................... 500,000 

Boone County Gunpowder Creek Trail System, KY .............................................................................................. 450,000 

Capitol Street Renaissance Project, MS .............................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Children’s Wharf Landing Intermodal Improvements, Boston, MA ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

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; Completion of Phase I: Negaunee, MI ..................................... 500,000 

College Avenue Redesign, NJ ............................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Downtown Revitalization: Phase II of Main Street Revitalization, Las Cruces, NM ........................................... 500,000 

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 Stateline, UT ............................................................... 1,000,000 

Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements and enhancements, IL .................................... 3,000,000

Kanawha Trestle Rail-Trail Project, WV ............................................................................................................... 2,000,000 
78 

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND ....................................................................................................................... 343,750 

Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization Project, NY .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

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. 
79 

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 

Project name Committee 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 

Project name Committee 

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. 
80 

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. 
81 

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 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

146th Street Corridor Extension, Boone County, IN ............................................................................................. $500,000 

159th and US 69 Interchange Improvements, Overland Park, KS ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

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, NY ........................................................................... 500,000 

Cesar Chavez Blvd/Calexico-West Port of Entry Congestion Improvements, CA ................................................ 3,000,000 

City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project—University Blvd and Greensboro Avenue, AL ................. 4,000,000 

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 Project, KY ....................................................................... 2,000,000 

El Camino East/West Corridor, Winfield, LA ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

Establishment of Railroad Quiet Zones in the Town of Hamburg, NY ............................................................... 500,000 

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, Cedar Rapids, IA .............................................. 1,000,000

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 
82 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

I–540 Interchange Improvements, Washington and Benton Counties, AR ......................................................... 2,000,000 

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 River, MO .................................................................... 1,000,000 

Improvements to US Route 1 for access to York County Community College, ME ............................................ 500,000 

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 Improvements to US 81, SD ........................................ 1,000,000 

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 1, AR .................................................................... 3,000,000 

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 Olathe, KS ...................................................................... 750,000 

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, Muncie, IN ................................................................ 1,000,000 

Melbourne International Access Road, FL ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Milwaukee Intermodal Station Improvements to Train Shed and Platforms, WI ................................................ 1,500,000 

N.A. Sandifer Highway, MS .................................................................................................................................. 315,000 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation, U.S. Route 4 Red List Bridge Repair, West Lebanon, NH ...... 1,000,000 

New York State Route 12 ..................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Niagara Falls International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation Center, NY .......................................... 500,000 

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 Interchange, Wichita, KS ................................................. 500,000 

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 Madison Street, Sioux Falls, SD ............................ 3,000,000 

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), Des Moines, IA .......................................................... 1,500,000 

Shiloh Road, MT ................................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Slide Repair Work along US 60 in Eastern Kanawha County, WV ...................................................................... 5,000,000 

South Entrance Interchange at Mississippi State University, MS ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Southwest Arterial, Dubuque, IA .......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

St. John Medical Center—Broken Arrow Traffic Improvement, OK ..................................................................... 250,000 

Starkweather Creek Parkway Bike Path, WI ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

State Route 317, between I–75 and Collegedale in Hamilton County, TN ........................................................ 1,000,000 

Steptoe Street Extension Project, WA ................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 
83 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

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 South Main Street ...................................................... 500,000 

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 Junction, VT ............................................................... 3,000,000 

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 Bikeway Project, KY ............................................... 1,000,000 

Whiterock Sustainable Trail, Guthrie County, IA ................................................................................................. 400,000 

Zanesville State Street Bridge Renovation and Repair Project, OH ................................................................... 500,000 

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 
84 

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 
85 

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 de-
86 

velopment. 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. 
87 

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 
88 

$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. 
89 
90 

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 
91 

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, Overthe-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: 

2008 

enacted 

2009 

estimate 

Committee 

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 
92 

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. 
93 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

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 program .................................................................... 25,000,000 

Border enforcement grants ............................................................................................................................ 32,000,000 

Performance and registration information system management [PRISM] grants ........................................ 5,000,000 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks [CVISN] grants ...................................................... 25,000,000 

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 
94 

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 
95 

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 (sec-
96 

tion 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: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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. 
97 

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 fatali-
98 

ties, 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. 
99 

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 
100 

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. 
101 

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 
102 

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 
103 

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] 
104 

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 of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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 lim-
105 

itation 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 

authorization 

Limitation on 

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 alcoholimpaired 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 en-
106 

acted 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 Grants (section 408) ................................................... 34,500,000 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (section 410) ...................................................... 139,000,000 

Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010) .......................................................................................................... 7,000,000 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants (section 2011) ................................................... 7,000,000 

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. 
107 

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. 
108 

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: 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety program, Illinois, to improve rail-grade crossing through education and 

enforcement activities ................................................................................................................................... $500,000 

Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia University, West Virginia, for the development of safe construction and maintenance practices that utilize advanced blast materials and structural systems ....... 250,000 

Ohio Hub Cleveland-Columbus Rail Corridor, Ohio, for a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement .. 500,000 

Track Stability Technology, Marshall University, West Virginia, for the development of new track stability 

technologies using the State’s rail lines as the test bed for calibrations ................................................. 500,000 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2009 ........................................................................... $100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
109 

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 

Project name Committee 

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 
110 

RAIL LINE RELOCATION—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

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]. 
111 

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 impor-
112 

tance 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 re- quest 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 
113 

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. 
114 

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 
115 

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. 
116 

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 longdistance 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] 

Service May 2008 Fiscal year 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 
117 

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 preestablished 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 FRAmandated 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) 
118 

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 ontime 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.’’ 
119 

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 
120 

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 
121 

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 ontime 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 
122 

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: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 estimate 

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. 
123 

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 
124 

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: 
125 

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): 
126 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINSITRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE) 

State Section 5307 and 5340 urbanized area Section 5311 and 5340 non-urbanized area Section 5310 special needs for elderly and individuals with disabilities Job access and reverse commute New freedom State total 

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 
127 

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 
128 

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 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Abilene Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, TX ..................................................................................................... $480,000 

Addison County Transit Resources Facilities, Buses, and Equipment, VT ......................................................... 1,000,000 

Alabama Senior Transportation Program, AL ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Albuquerque Transit Facility Rehabilitation, City of Albuquerque, NM ............................................................... 150,000 

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, WA ............................................................................. 1,350,000 

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, and Equipment, VT ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Design and Construction of an Intermodal Transportation Center for Los Lunas, NM ...................................... 1,000,000

Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal Facility, Dubuque, IA .................................................... 250,000 

East Tennessee Human Resources Agency Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles, TN ................................................ 1,000,000 

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, VA ................................................................... 1,000,000 

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 
129 

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

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 the Mentally Disabled, AL ...................................... 300,000 

MARTA Clean Fuel Buses and Facilities, GA ....................................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Murray-Calloway County Transit Authority Expansion Project, KY ...................................................................... 1,200,000 

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 developments, NV ..................................................................... 500,000 

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 Project, MO ........................................................................ 4,000,000 

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 Cruces, NM .............................................................. 1,000,000 

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 

Project name Committee 

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 Rail Project, PA .................................................... 1,000,000 

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 
130 

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: 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Missouri Transportation Institute, Missouri, for research on alternative sources of energy to power transit 

vehicles, including hydrogen power and plug-in hybrids ........................................................................... $1,000,000 

West Virginia University Exhaust Emissions Testing 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 ................................................................................................................................... $500,000 

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 
131 

[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: 

Project name Committee 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 County, KS ............................................................... 1,500,000 

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, NC ............................................................................. 18,000,000 

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 Rail MOS, TX ............................................................. 87,974,716 

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 Solutions Phase 2, TX ................................................ 10,000,000 

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—Central Subway, CA ................................................ 8,000,000 

Second Avenue Subway—Phase I, NY ............................................................................................................ 249,927,000 

South Corridor I205/ Portland Mall Light Rail Project, OR ............................................................................. 81,600,000 

South County Commuter Rail, Wickford Junction Station, RI ......................................................................... 1,345,500 

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 
132 

Project name Committee recommendation 

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 de-
133 

velopment 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 
134 

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 
135 

budget request. Funding for the subaccounts within the ‘‘operations 

and training’’ account are provided as follows: 

Fiscal year 2009 

request 

Committee 

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 Schools ................................................................. 10,987,000 14,700,000 

MARAD Operations: 

Ports & MTS Improvement ................................................................................. 3,743,000 5,743,000 

Capital Construction Fund Management ........................................................... 618,000 618,000 

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 Management ..................................................... 921,000 921,000 

Strategic Ports/National Security Planning ....................................................... 1,335,000 1,335,000 

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 Training ......................................................... 117,847,000 123,560,000 

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. 
136 

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 
137 

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. 
138 

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 
139 

$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. 
140 

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. 
141 

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. 
142 

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 nonprofit 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 competi-
143 

tive 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. 
144 

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 [NDGPS] .............................................................................. 5,000,000 

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 
145 

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, 
146 

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 fulltime 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 marketbased 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 
147 

deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting 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. 
148 

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. 
149 

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. 
(150) 

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 appropria- tion 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 pro-
151 

gram, 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 Intergovernmental Relations ..................................... 2,828,630 

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 Affairs ......................................................................... 1,669,430 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community and Planning Development ................................................... 1,778,650 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner ................................................. 3,936,000 
152 

Amount 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research ........................................................... 1,490,850 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ....................................................... 719,820 

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 Senateconfirmed 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, 
153 

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 Benefits ........................................................................ $75,510,000 

Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination Personnel Compensation and Benefits .......................... 11,003,940 

Office of Field Policy and Management Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................................................ 48,817,430 

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Personnel Compensation and Benefits ............................................... 13,438,200 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer Personnel Compensation and Benefits .................................................... 34,028,820 

Office of the General Counsel Personnel Compensation and Benefits ............................................................... 84,837,460 

Office of the Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................ 3,085,120 

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Personnel Compensation and Benefits ................................ 1,215,280 

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 au-
154 

thorized 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 tenantbased 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 imple-
155 

menting 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 markup 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 
156 

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 
157 

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 leadbased 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 leadbased 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. 
158 

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 selfsufficiency. 

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 effi-
159 

cient 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 tenantbased 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. 
160 

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 re-
161 

serve 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 
162 

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 
163 

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 drugrelated 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 
164 

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 
165 

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. 
166 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account 

Limitation on 

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)

Program account 

Limitation on 

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. 
167 

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 
168 

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 pro-
169 

mote 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 ad-
170 

ministrations ‘‘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 avail- able 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 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

180 Turning Lives Around Hazlet, NJ, for the design and construction of a new domestic violence shelter ... $1,000,000 

Acadiana Outreach Center, Lafayette, LA, for building of a mixed income housing development in Lafayette, LA ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. Toledo, OH, for renovation of the former Western Union Building 

located at the corner of Huron Street and Jefferson Avenue in downtown Toledo, OH ................................. 750,000 

Albany Dougherty Industrial Park, Albany, GA, for transformation of real estate property and infrastructure 

into a Certified Industrial Park ....................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Alexandria—Riverfront Multi-State Development for the Alexandria Riverfront, Alexandria, LA ....................... 500,000 

American Lighthouse Foundation, Rockland, ME, for restoration and preservation of Maine’s historic lighthouses .............................................................................................................................................................. 400,000 
171 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Appalachia Service Project, WV, for providing free home repairs to low-income families in Southern West 

Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Ardmore Development Authority/City of Ardmore, OK, for infrastructure improvements necessary to develop 

the Ardmore Technology Park .......................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Arlington Chamber of Commerce, Arlington, TX, for development of an entrepreneurial center ....................... 200,000 

Armstrong County, PA, for site preparation and redevelopment of a brownfield site ....................................... 200,000

Audubon Mississippi, Moss Point, MS, for a nature-based education facility ................................................... 1,000,000 

Audubon Nature Institute, New Orleans, LA, for building a Living Science Museum ........................................ 200,000 

Barnesville-Lamar County Industrial Park, Barnesville, GA, for site preparation and infrastructure ............... 500,000 

Berkshire Theater Festival, Stockbridge, MA, for renovation and revitalization of the Berkshire Theatre Festival’s facilities and grounds .......................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Bernalillo County, NM, for transitional housing facility for recovering substance abuse clients ..................... 600,000 

Beyond Housing, St. Louis, MO, for the demolition and development of the Pagedale Community Development Initiative ................................................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Big Sky Econ. Dev. Authority, Billings, MT, for development and urban renewal in East Downtown Billings .. 325,000 

Boys and Girls Club of Fauquier County, VA, for facility renovations in support of the new building, including making the building handicap accessible ............................................................................................... 200,000 

Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua, Nashua, NH, for renovation and expansion of the facility ................ 500,000 

Boys and Girls Club of the Grand River, McLaughlin, SD, 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 ...................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Care and Share Food Bank, Colorado Springs, CO, for equipment to be used to expand services to low-income individuals ............................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Casey County Fiscal Court, Liberty, KY, for renovations at the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Expo Center 200,000 

Casper College, Casper, WY, for the creation of business incubators ............................................................... 500,000 

Cathedral Soup Kitchen, Inc., Camden, NJ, for the construction of a new facility ........................................... 200,000 

Center for People in Need, Lincoln, NE, for construction and renovation to create the Non-Profits and Education/Training Center ..................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Central Utah Pioneer Heritage Association, UT, for construction and project development funds ................... 200,000 

Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, PA, for site preparation and redevelopment as part of 

the West End revitalization initiative .............................................................................................................. 200,000 

Charleston Kanawha Housing Authority, Chas. WV, for new low-income housing at the Littlepage Terrace 

and Washington Manor public housing facilities in downtown Charleston, WV ........................................... 2,000,000 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Charlotte, NC, for transforming vacant and blighted properties 

along the Statesville Avenue Corridor into affordable housing ..................................................................... 400,000 

Child Abuse and Neglect Council Of Oakland County, Pontiac, MI, for renovation and expansion of the facility ................................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Chilkat Indian Village/Klukwan, AK, for construction of Heritage Center and Bald Eagle Observatory ............ 500,000 

Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, MT, for transportation and rehabilitation of housing units from Malmstrom 

Air force base that would otherwise be destroyed to the Rocky Boy’s Reservation ...................................... 750,000 

Christopher House, Chicago, IL, for the construction of Logan Square Family Resource Center ...................... 250,000 

City of Ada, OK, for construction of a water storage tower ............................................................................... 200,000 

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 of dilapidated housing ................................................. 300,000 

City of Billings, MT, for environmental remediation and demolition of building previously owned by U.S. 

Naval Reserve .................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Boise, ID, for design and construction of the City of Boise’s geothermal system expansion ............... 700,000 

City of Bridgeport, CT, for relevant outreach, advocacy, education, financial assistance and support services .................................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Brockton, MA, for renovations to the War Memorial building and redevelopment of blighted downtown area ......................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 

City of Carbondale, PA, for downtown revitalization efforts ............................................................................... 200,000 

City of Carlsbad, NM, for continued construction of a youth sports complex in Carlsbad, New Mexico .......... 200,000 

City of Charleston, SC, for the preservation, construction, and critically needed improvements to the St. 

Andrews’ neighborhood’s low-income housing ............................................................................................... 300,000 

City of Cincinnati, OH, for complete property acquisition, demolition, and remediation of the Queen City 

Barrel area to create an urban industrial park ............................................................................................. 500,000 

City of Council Bluffs, IA, for housing rehabilitation and construction in the Playland Park neighborhood located north of I–480 and west of I–29 ......................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Craig, AK, for the redevelopment of the abandoned cannery property in the City of Craig ................. 350,000 

City of Detroit, MI, for preservation and redevelopment of a public park and related business activities in 

the Corktown Neighborhood ............................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 
172 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

City of Easton, PA, for housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization ................................................ 500,000 

City of Evanston, WY, for improvements to the Historic Evanston Roundhouse and Railyard in Evanston, 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

City of Highland Park, MI, for elimination of blight in the North Point neighborhood ...................................... 500,000 

City of Hillsboro, TX, for streetscape improvements ........................................................................................... 200,000 

City of Jackson, MS, for renovation and rehabilitation of the Thalia Mara Performing Arts Facility ................ 400,000 

City of Jackson, MS, for the renovation of the Historic Medgar Evers Farish Street NAACP Office .................. 750,000 

City of Jasper, AL, for an Industrial Park Development ...................................................................................... 800,000 

City of Kankakee, IL, for the purchase, renovation and conversion of houses that are in foreclosure, abandoned, or in disrepair to affordable use properties ....................................................................................... 250,000 

City of Kotzebue, AK, for construction of recreation and fairgrounds area ....................................................... 400,000 

City of Marshalltown, IA, for housing redevelopment in the Grant Park Neighborhood .................................... 600,000 

City of Maysville, Maysville, KY, for the renovation of the Cox Building ........................................................... 2,700,000 

City of Medford, MA, for downtown redevelopment and rehabilitation .............................................................. 200,000 

City of Methuen, MA, for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of blighted and underutilized buildings ........ 200,000 

City of Midland, TX, for downtown redevelopment .............................................................................................. 200,000 

City of Milwaukee, WI, Redevelopment Authority for site acquisition, demolition, remediation, and/or redevelopment of priority projects in the 30th Street Industrial Corridor ............................................................ 200,000 

City of Nashua, NH, for design and construction of downtown riverfront redevelopment program .................. 400,000 

City of North Adams, MA, for the redevelopment of historic downtown building .............................................. 200,000 

City of Northwood, ND, for reconstruction of downtown retail and office space destroyed by a tornado ........ 700,000 

City of Orlando, FL, for redevelopment of blighted areas of Parramore neighborhood ..................................... 1,000,000 

City of Oxford, MS, for renovation of the Powerhouse Community Arts Center ................................................. 300,000 

City of Pierre, SD, for revitalization of the Pierre historic downtown area and waterfront development ......... 200,000 

City of Portland, OR, for capital and operating costs to assist homeless and low income veterans with 

housing and supportive services .................................................................................................................... 600,000 

City of Reno, NV, for purchase of vacant buildings for Oliver Montello affordable housing projects .............. 200,000 

City of Rocky Mount, NC, for renovation of existing buildings for the revitalization of downtown Rocky 

Mount ............................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

City of Rosslyn, WA, for structural upgrades and other improvements to Rosslyn’s primary public facility ... 840,000 

City of South Salt Lake, UT, for streetscaping features along State and Main Streets between northern 

boundary of the City and I–80 ....................................................................................................................... 400,000 

City of Spartanburg, SC, for installation of residential infrastructure .............................................................. 400,000 

City of Tarrant, AL, for streetscaping and pedestrian walkways to support proposed economic development 

plans ................................................................................................................................................................ 400,000 

City of Toledo, OH, for completion of asbestos abatement and to begin structural improvements for the redevelopment of the former ACME power plant building ................................................................................ 500,000 

County of Tunica, MS, for restoration of existing 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 ........................................................................................................................... 950,000 

City of Waterbury, CT, for the redevelopment of brownfields ............................................................................. 250,000 

City of Waterloo, IA, for demolition and redevelopment of a blighted area ...................................................... 400,000 

City of Wilkes-Barre, PA, for revitalization of economic and recreational amenities at Coal Street Park ........ 1,000,000 

City of Wilson, NC, for clearing blighted structures from downtown Wilson and constructing new units for 

commercial occupancy .................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

City of Wrangell, AK, for renovation of a community center .............................................................................. 500,000 

Clark County Food Bank, Clark County, WA, for the construction of a food bank ............................................ 750,000 

Clearfield City, UT, for purchasing 2.29 blighted acres, and to fund the development of public open spaces 400,000 

Community Housing of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, KS, for the continuing revitalization efforts in the 

St. Peter’s neighborhood ................................................................................................................................. 900,000 

CommunityWorks, Helena, MT, for facility construction ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Connie Lupardus, CAEZ, Clay, WV, for the construction and economic development activities of the Central 

Appalachian Empowerment Zone .................................................................................................................... 200,000 

County of Hudson, NJ, for transformation of the former Koppers Coke site in Kearny into a 2 million square 

foot industrial park that includes warehousing and distribution space ....................................................... 400,000 

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, for construction and renovation of the Lompoc Veterans 

Building ........................................................................................................................................................... 850,000 

Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, for construction of a visitor center and recreational facilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Downtown Emergency Services Center, Seattle, WA, for the provision of 83 studio apartments for chronically homeless, mentally ill people ................................................................................................................ 750,000 

Downtown Jackson Plaza Incorporated, Jackson, MS, for construction of a civic gathering plaza ................... 1,000,000 
173 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

East Moline Downtown Development, East Moline, IL, for capital improvements to infrastructure and development projects in downtown E. Moline, including acquisition and renovation of dilapidated structures .. 250,000 

Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA, for the expansion of the current Community Center facility ....................... 300,000 

Flagship Enterprise Center, Anderson, IN, for technology and infrastructure improvements ............................ 500,000 

Four Bands Community Fund, Eagle Butte, SD, for the Four Bands Community Fund to enable the organization to capitalize a revolving loan program, and in addition provide business development assistance 250,000 

Granger, WA, for the construction of the Granger Community Center ............................................................... 300,000 

Grant County Food Bank, Silver City, NM, for the rehabilitation or construction of a facility to serve as a 

food pantry and thrift store to serve the needs of Grant County .................................................................. 500,000 

Great Falls Development Authority, Great Falls, MT, for infrastructure related construction along Black 

Eagle Road ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Great Smoky Mountains Heritage Center Townsend, TN, Expansion and improvements to the Heritage Center .................................................................................................................................................................... 600,000 

Greene County Industrial Board, Greene County, AL, Industrial Park Development ........................................... 300,000 

Hawaii Public Housing Authority, HI, for code enforcement and renovation of abandoned housing units to 

provide 22 housing units for low income individuals in Honolulu ................................................................ 400,000 

Highline-West Seattle Mental Health, Burien, WA, for the provision of permanent, affordable housing and 

on-site mental health treatment and case management for 22 adults living with serious and persistent 

mental illness .................................................................................................................................................. 225,000 

Hocking Athens Pery Community Action, Glouster, OH, for the renovation of the community center ............... 250,000 

Hope Community Development Corporation, Charleston, WV, for purchasing existing dilapidated properties 

for the construction of new homes ................................................................................................................. 750,000 

Howard County, Ellicott City, MD, for construction and equipment for community rooms ................................ 400,000 

International Institute of RI, Providence, RI, for building renovations to expand and improve community 

services to low-income individuals ................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des Moines, IA, for improving the physical and economic 

health of city centers ...................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Jackson County Board of Supervisors, Jackson County, MS, for improvements and enhancements to the 

County’s multi-purpose community arena in Vancleave ................................................................................ 200,000 

King County Housing Authority, Seattle, WA, for neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and community investment ................................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Kitsap Mental Health Services, Bremerton, WA, for the provision of 16 residential and short-term stabilization beds for adults age 18 and over with severe or acute mental illness ................................................. 400,000 

Kodiak Island Borough/Women’s Bay, AK, for construction of an emergency shelter ........................................ 500,000 

Laiopua 2020, Kailua-Kona, HI, for planning, design, and construction of the Laiopua 2020 Community 

Center .............................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Lake Area Improvement Corporation, Madison, SD, for expansion of the industrial park ................................. 200,000 

Lake Area Community Center, New Orleans, LA, for the building of a mixed income housing development in 

Lafayette, LA .................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Lakota Fund, Kyle, SD, for capitalization of a revolving loan program and business development assistance ................................................................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Lewiston City, UT, for reconstruction and revitalization of local community recreation center ........................ 250,000 

Los Pueblos Community Council, Ribera, NM, for preservation and renovation of Old Ribera School Building 

for use as a community and cultural center ................................................................................................. 900,000 

MAC, Inc., Area Agency on Aging, Salisbury, MD, for the construction of a new building that will house 

programs and services for lower shore elders ............................................................................................... 400,000 

Massachusetts Attorney General, MA, for repair of abandoned houses ............................................................. 200,000 

Memphis Bioworks Foundation, TN, for construction of the UT-Baptist Research Park in the downtown 

Memphis Medical Center ................................................................................................................................. 800,000 

Mercy Housing Lakefront, Chicago, IL, for the development of supportive housing units for homeless in the 

City of Milwaukee ............................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Newport News, VA, for acquisition, demolition and relocation activities, and capital improvements of dilapidated housing ................................................................................................................................................. 700,000 

Nickerson Community Center, Providence, RI, for building renovations to provide permanent rental housing 

for veterans who are chronically homeless .................................................................................................... 600,000 

Northern Community Investment Corporation, St. Johnsbury, VT, for the North County Broadband Initiative, 

NH .................................................................................................................................................................... 700,000 

Northeast Community Center, Spokane County, WA, for the implementation of the third phase of the Center’s expansion to include a new partner, Partners for Families and Children ............................................ 500,000

Northeast Community College, Norfolk, NE, for construction of the College Center at South Sioux City, NE ... 500,000 

North-Missoula CDC, Missoula, MT, for construction of a neighborhood center ................................................ 1,000,000 

Nye County, NV, for a multi-generational community facility in Amargosa Valley ............................................ 200,000 
174 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation 

Office of Economic Opportunity, VT, for homeless mental illness and substance abuse programs through 

Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity ........................................................................................................ 250,000 

Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, for acquisition and rehabilitation of vacant 

properties as part of a low and moderate income housing initiative ........................................................... 200,000 

Ojinjinkta Housing Development Corporation, LLC, Rosebud Home Manufacturing Facility, SD, for the inventory and equipment needed for the construction of affordable homes for Native Americans ...................... 600,000 

Oktibbeha County, MS, for restoration of the Oktibbeha County Courthouse .................................................... 300,000 

Open Arms of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for construction of a new building for Open Arms of Minnesota 300,000 

Opportunity Village, Las Vegas, NV, for a new employment and training center .............................................. 600,000 

Orange County Government, Orlando, FL, for renovations to a building to house a center that will engage 

and support the chronically homeless ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Orange County Great Park Corporation, CA, for improvements to the Orange County Great Park .................... 500,000 

Our City Reading, Reading, PA, for a housing rehabilitation initiative and down payment assistance for 

home buyers .................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Pacific Gateway Center, HI, for retail business incubator capital improvement project targeting immigrants, 

refugees and low-to-moderate income residents of Hawaii who seek entrepreneurship as a means of escaping poverty ................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Para Los Ninos, Los Angeles, CA, for the renovation of the Vermont Avenue Family Resources Center .......... 300,000 

Pendleton Round-Up Association, Pendleton, OR, for the reconstruction and construction needs of the Pendleton Round-Up and Happy Canyon Facilities .............................................................................................. 750,000 

Port of Gold Beach, OR, for rebuilding the high dock ........................................................................................ 200,000 

Poughkeepsie, NY, for the development of a pedestrian bridge ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

Providence Community Action, Providence, RI, for purchase of a building to provide transitional housing for 

homeless families ............................................................................................................................................ 700,000 

Provo City, UT, for a parking facility ................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Puget Sound Educational Service Dist, Seattle, WA, for the construction of the Greenbridge Early Learning 

Center .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Quincy Smelter, Franklin Township, MI, for remediation and preservation ........................................................ 300,000 

Randolph County YMCA, IN, for expansion of the Child Care Facility ............................................................... 500,000 

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Ponemah, MN, for 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 .......................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

reStart, Inc., Kansas City, MO, to provide for facility improvements ................................................................. 400,000 

Ritchie County Commission, WV, for the completion of the North fork of the Hughes River Watershed 

Project .............................................................................................................................................................. 650,000 

RurAL CAP, Anchorage, AK, for rural Alaska Head Start facility upgrades, including energy-efficiency measures, health/safety improvements, and increased activity space .................................................................. 200,000 

Rural Learning Center, Howard, SD, for construction of a green energy training center and elimination of 

community blight ............................................................................................................................................. 200,000 

Salishan HOPE IV, Tacoma, WA, for neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and community investment ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

San Juan County, UT, for renovations and facility upgrade ............................................................................... 400,000 

Scott County Housing Council, Davenport, IA, for Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Pool 

in Scott County, Iowa ...................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

Second Harvest Food Bank, Muncie, IN, for the renovation of the Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central 

Indiana ............................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Southwest Indian Foundation, Gallup, NM, for the Operation Footprint program to construct and place new 

homes for needy Navajo families .................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Southwestern Vermont Council On Aging, VT, for Vermont Senior Centers Renovations and Maintenance ...... 400,000 

Spirit Lake Nation, Fort Totten, ND, for construction of low-income senior housing units ............................... 750,000 

St. Michael’s School and Nursery, Wilmington, DE, for HVAC replacement in school for low-income children .................................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

St. Monica’s Home, Lincoln, NE, for construction of the new St. Monica’s Community Center for low income 

women and their families in need of substance abuse and mental health treatment ................................ 440,000 

Stone County, MS, for heavy equipment to assist in infrastructure needs across the county ......................... 200,000 

Tallahatchie County, MS, for restoration of the Tallahatchie County Courthouse ............................................. 1,000,000 

The Houston Food Bank, Houston, TX, for the purchase and renovation of a new building ............................. 650,000 

The Ministry of Caring Inc., Wilmington, DE, for handicap accessibility to a homeless shelter for women .... 500,000 

Town of Boothbay, ME, for development of visitor and educational facilities and public access waterfront 

trails ................................................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Town of Colmar Manor, MD, for construction of the Colmar Manor Community Center ................................... 300,000 

Town of Milo, ME, for utility and infrastructure upgrades to the new Eastern Piscataquis Industrial Park .... 500,000 

Town of Rockingham, VT, for Rockingham Community Recreation Center ........................................................ 400,000 
175 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Town of Warren, Warren, RI, for rehabilitation and revitalization of park infrastructure to serve low-income 

families ............................................................................................................................................................ 200,000 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, ND, for the construction of a youth center to serve Native 

Americans on the reservation ......................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Vermont Department of Buildings and Services, VT, for Veterans Monuments ................................................. 250,000 

Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Montpelier, VT, for projects throughout the State of Vermont to 

enhance affordable housing and community development linked with land conservation and historic 

preservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 

Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VT, for Vergennes Senior Housing Project ..................................... 400,000 

Volunteers of America—Dakotas, Sioux Falls, SD, for construction of a new facility to house a residential 

substance treatment center for women and their children and for other services ...................................... 500,000 

Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc., Mobile, AL, for construction of housing along Alabama’s Katrinadecimated Gulf Coast ...................................................................................................................................... 1,400,000 

Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Hartford, CT, for waterproofing activities in basement-level storage 

areas ................................................................................................................................................................ 700,000 

WECRD, Mountain Home, ID, for planning, design, and construction of an energy efficient, multi-use, community facility .................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Vernonia, OR, for restoration of services ..................................................... 500,000 

Wick Neighbors, Inc. Youngstown, OH, for replacing and improving existing infrastructure around the Wick 

neighborhood in Youngstown, OH to promote economic development ........................................................... 700,000 

Wilmington Housing Authority, Wilmington, DE, for exterior facade repair of fire damage to low-income 

housing ............................................................................................................................................................ 500,000 

Winrock International, Little Rock, AR, for support of the Winrock International Regional Entrepreneur Assistance Program ............................................................................................................................................. 400,000 

Woodward Industrial Foundation, Woodward, OK, for construction of a multi-purpose community campus .... 200,000 

World Trade Center of St. Louis, MO, for the development of a commercialization center to enhance business and economic activities .......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

YMCA of Eastern Union County, Elizabeth, NJ, for renovation of social services facilities ............................... 300,000

YMCA of Pawtucket, Pawtucket, RI, for purchase of equipment to expand and improve the quality and 

quantity of community services for low and moderate income families ....................................................... 300,000 

YWCA of Northwest Georgia, Inc., Marietta, GA, for housing programs and staff which assist women, men 

and children who are survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault .................................................... 500,000 

YWCA Seattle-King Co-Snohomish County, Seattle WA, for the improvement of the 3 housing projects acquired recently to expand the YWCA Snohomish County Regional Housing Network .................................... 400,000 

YWCA, Spokane, WA, for the creation of Youth Development program space complete with fixtures, furnishings and equipment ................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

YWCA, Yakima, WA, for infrastructure improvements to Bringing It Home, Central Washington’s largest domestic violence facility .................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

The neighborhood initiatives are as follows: 

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Catholic Charities Housing Services, Yakima, WA, for the education of Hispanic communities regarding 

homeownership ................................................................................................................................................ $800,000 

Center for Planning and Excellence, LA, for phase II of comprehensive planning for land use, transportation and economic development in parishes and municipalities in Louisiana .......................................... 200,000 

City of Racine, WI, Redevelopment Authority, for demolition of blighted buildings and vacant parcels, street 

beautification and restoration of a station platform at the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad depot ............ 1,000,000 

City of Spokane, WA, for homeless rapid rehousing activities ........................................................................... 150,000 

City of Vancouver, WA, for road and rail system improvements to reconnect Vancouver to the Columbia 

River ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

City of Waterbury, CT, for a plan to clean polluted and blighted properties and market them for suitable 

redevelopment .................................................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Covenant House Alaska Crisis Center, Anchorage, AK, for relocation and expansion ....................................... 350,000 

Harbor Homes, Nashua, NH, for two new supportive housing programs for honorably discharged homeless 

veterans ........................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Missisippi State University, MS, for a Civic Capacity Development Initiative ................................................... 1,000,000 

Nevada Fair Housing Center, Las Vegas, NV, for purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties .......... 850,000 
176 

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES—Continued 

Project name Committee 

recommendation 

Patrick F. Taylor Foundation, New Orleans, LA, for the acquisition, renovation and construction of affordable housing in the Greater New Orleans area .............................................................................................. 200,000 

St. Louis County Economic Council, St. Louis, MO, for the planning and design for the Lemay Community 

Center .............................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 

Tiverton Library Services, Tiverton, RI, for land acquisition to build a new public library ............................... 500,000 

Village of Columbus, NM, for the renovation of the former Columbus Elementary school building to house a 

multi-purpose community facility ................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program costs Limitation on 

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 nonentitlement 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. 
177 

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 
178 

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 
179 

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 
180 

‘‘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 
181 

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. 
182 

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. 
183 

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 tenantbased 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. 
184 

HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2008 1 ........................................................................... $50,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ........................................................................... 65,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,000,000 

1Funding 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 
185 

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 direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 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. 
186 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 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 work-
187 

ing 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 lowincome 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 
188 

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 
189 

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. 
190 

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 
191 

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. 
192 

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 
193 

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. 
194 

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 projectbased 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. 
195 

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. 
(196) 

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. 
197 

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. 
198 

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. Un-
199 

fortunately, 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 
200 

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- 
201 

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 McKinneyVento 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 
202 

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. 
(203) 

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. 
(204) 

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 
205 

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 
206 

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 

§ 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 
207 

Secretary shall approve) in an amount not to exceed the lesser 

of— 

ø(A) not to exceed the lesser of— 

ø(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 

ø(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 

ø(B) not to exceed an amount equal to the sum of— 

ø(i) the amount of the mortgage insurance premium paid at the time the mortgage is insured; and 

ø(ii) in the case of— 

ø(I) a mortgage for a property with an ap- praised value equal to or less than $50,000, 98.75 

percent of the appraised value of the property; 

ø(II) a mortgage for a property with an ap- praised value in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of $125,000, 97.65 percent of the appraised 

value of the property; 

ø(III) a mortgage for a property with an ap- praised value in excess of $125,000, 97.15 percent 

of the appraised value of the property; or 

ø(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; 
208 

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. 

øFor 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. 
209 

øNotwithstanding 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 

§ 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 ø2003¿ 2009. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2007¿ September 30, 2009. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 130—NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

SUBCHAPTER II—INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

PART B—COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP

§ 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 ø20¿ 25 percent of the amount appropriated for 

this section for such fiscal year; or 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Single-State contractors 
210 

Not less than ø40¿ 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

§ 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 ø20¿ 40 percent of the funds appropriated 

under this part in that fiscal year. 

* * * * * * * 

PART E—OTHER ASSISTANCE

§ 12821. Downpayment assistance initiative 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) Sunset 

The Secretary shall have no authority to make grants under 

this øAct after December 31, 2007¿ section after December 31, 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 135—RESIDENCY AND SERVICE 

REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING 

SUBCHAPTER IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

§ 13641. Definitions 

For purposes of this title: 1

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Federally assisted housing 

The terms ‘‘federally assisted housing’’ and ‘‘project’’ 

mean— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
211 

(F) housing insured, assisted, or held by the Secretary 

or a State or State agency under section 1715z–1 of title 

12; øand¿ 

(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 

sectionø.¿; 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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 51509. Student incentive payment agreements 

(a) * * * 

(b) PAYMENTS.—Payments under an agreement under this section shall be equal to ø$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 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through August 31, ø2006¿ 2009, and may extend through December 31, 

ø2006¿ 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 
212 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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, ø2006¿ 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, ø2008¿ 2012. 

* * * * * * * 
213 

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)) ørelating 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 øa 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 
214 

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 McKinneyVento 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 
215 

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 

allocation Amount of bill Committee allocation Amount of 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 

2009 ......................................................................................... NA 26,268 NA 27,864 

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 au-
216 

thority 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. 
217 

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 
218 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 
219 

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 
220 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 
221 

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 Development Program ..... Byram-Clinton/Norrell Corridor, MS ................................................................................................. 1,500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Downtown Greenwood Connector Route, MS ................................................................................... 1,500,000 Senator Cochran Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Natchez Riverfront Trails, MS .......................................................................................................... 450,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Poplar Bluff Bypass, MO ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 Senator Bond Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Route 60, MO ................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Bond 
222 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Route 61, MO ................................................................................................................................... 639,550 Senator Bond Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Route 84–Interstate 55, MO ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 Senator Bond Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Cochran Delta Regional Transportation Development Program ..... Stoddard County, to make road improvements, MO ....................................................................... 360,440 Senator Bond Denali Commission ........................................................... Denali Commission, AK ................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 Senator Stevens Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Hazards .... Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA ............................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Feinstein Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Hazards .... Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation, Port of Tacoma, WA ................................................................. 1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Elimination of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Hazards .... Shaw Road Extension Project, City of Puyallup, WA ....................................................................... 2,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 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 Development .............. Advanced Materials Performance Research, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita 

State University, Wichita, KS.

2,500,000 Senators Brownback, Roberts 

FAA—Research, Engineering and Development .............. Center for Runway Safety Systems, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS .............................. 750,000 Senator Brownback FAA—Research, Engineering and Development .............. Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures ..................................................................... 500,000 Senator Murray FAA—Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities ................... Greenwood Airport Tower Construction, MS .................................................................................... 250,000 Senator ——————— 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 Reservation, SD. 1,000,000 Senator Thune 
223 

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 Facilities ........................ City of Gustavus Public Dock and Floats, AK ................................................................................. 1,000,000 Senator Murkowski Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ Ferry Service for Route 240 Bridge Improvements, MO .................................................................. 1,000,000 Senator Bond Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ Long Island Ferry Dock Construction, Boston, MA .......................................................................... 1,000,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ Mayport Ferry Rehabilitation, FL ..................................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ North Carolina Statewide Ferry System, NC .................................................................................... 2,000,000 Senator Dole Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ Rich Passage Wake Impact Study, WA ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 Senator Murray Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities ........................ Vashon Island PasSenatorer Ferry, WA ........................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell 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 
224 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 
225 

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, 

AL.

4,000,000 Senator Shelby 

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 
226 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 Lebanon, NH. 1,000,000 Senator Sununu 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 
227 

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 
228 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

TRANSPORTATION/HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 Preservation ..... A–B Street Corridor Connector Project, WA ..................................................................................... 2,000,000 Senator Murray Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Avenue of the Arts Revitalization and Streetscaping Project, PA .................................................. 500,000 Senator Casey Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Boone County Gunpowder Creek Trail System, KY .......................................................................... 450,000 Senator McConnell Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Capitol Street Renaissance Project, MS .......................................................................................... 3,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Children’s Wharf Landing Intermodal Improvements, Boston, MA ................................................. 1,000,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO ............................................................... 500,000 Senator Bond Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... City of Haverhill Downtown Streetscape Improvements, MA .......................................................... 300,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... City of Negaunee, Croix Street Reconstruction; Completion of Phase I: Negaunee, MI ................. 500,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... College Avenue Redesign, NJ .......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senators Lautenberg, Menendez Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Downtown Revitalization: Phase II of Main Street Revitalization, Las Cruces, NM ....................... 500,000 Senators Domenici, Bingaman Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... East Aztec Arterial Route, NM ......................................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Domenici, Bingaman Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Elkins Railyard Project, WV ............................................................................................................. 1,000,000 Senator Byrd Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Garrison Avenue Streetscaping, AR ................................................................................................. 1,000,000 Senators Lincoln, Pryor Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Hattiesburgh 4th Street Improvements, MS .................................................................................... 2,000,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... I–80 Intermodal Corridor Study—Oakland, CA to Utah Stateline, UT ........................................... 1,000,000 Senator Reid Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements and enhancements, IL ................ 3,000,000 Senator Durbin Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Kanawha Trestle Rail-Trail Project, WV .......................................................................................... 2,000,000 Senator Byrd Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND ................................................................................................... 343,750 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization Project, NY ..................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Schumer Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Mexico Technology Park, MO ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Bond Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... North Parkway Safety Improvement Project, WA ............................................................................. 500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Old Allentown Streetscape Improvements, PA ................................................................................ 500,000 Senator Casey 
229 

Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Potomac Street Improvement, WV ................................................................................................... 1,500,000 Senator Byrd Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Sidewalk Improvements, Williamstown, VT ..................................................................................... 200,000 Senators Leahy, Sanders Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... University Place Pedestrian Overpass, WA ...................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Transportation & Community & System Preservation ..... Woodland Trail Project, WA ............................................................................................................. 500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Assessment of Critical Transportation Infrastructure, MS ............................................................. 750,000 Senator Cochran Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Decision Support Tools for Transportation Resilience and Security, MS ........................................ 750,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Fire and Oil Spill Response Communications Project, WA ............................................................. 1,600,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Freight Transportation Policy Institute, WA ..................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, WA ......................................................................................... 250,000 Senator Murray Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... University Transportation Center, MS .............................................................................................. 500,000 Senators Cochran, Wicker Transportation Planning, Research and Development ..... Wildlife Crossing Project, FL ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Bill Nelson 

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, Inc. Toledo, OH ...... For renovation of the former Western Union Building located at the corner of Huron Street and 

Jefferson Avenue in downtown Toledo, OH.

750,000 Senator Brown 

Albany Dougherty Industrial Park, Albany, GA ................. For transformation of real estate property and infrastructure into a Certified Industrial Park ... 200,000 Senator Chambliss Alexandria Riverfront Multi-Site Development ................. For the redevelopment of the Alexandria Riverfront ....................................................................... 400,000 Senator Vitter American Lighthouse Foundation, Rockland, ME ............. For restoration and preservation of Maine’s historic lighthouses .................................................. 400,000 Senators Collins, Snowe 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 Ardmore, OK ...... For infrastructure improvements necessary to develop the Ardmore Technology Park .................. 200,000 Senator Inhofe Arlington Chamber of Commerce, Arlington, TX .............. For development of an entrepreneurial center ................................................................................ 200,000 Senator Hutchison 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, LA .................... For building a Living Science Museum ........................................................................................... 200,000 Senator Landrieu Barnesville-Lamar County Industrial Park, Barnesville, 

GA.

For site preparation and infrastructure. ......................................................................................... 500,000 Senator Chambliss 

Berkshire Theater Festival, Stockbridge, MA ................... For renovation and revitalization of the Berkshire Theatre Festival’s facilities and grounds ...... 200,000 Senators Kennedy, Kerry 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, MT ...................... For development and urban renewal in East Downtown Billings .................................................. 325,000 Senator Baucus Boys & Girls Club of the Grand River, McLaughlin, SD .. 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.

200,000 Senator Johnson 

Boys and Girls Club of Fauquier County, VA ................... For facility renovations in support of the new building, including making the building handicap accessible. 200,000 Senators Warner, Webb Boys and Girls Club of Greater Nashua, Nashua, NH ..... For renovation and expansion of the facility .................................................................................. 300,000 Senator Gregg 
230 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Grantee Project Funding Member 

Care and Share Food Bank, Colorado Springs, CO ......... For equipment to be used to expand services to low-income individuals .................................... 300,000 Senator Salazar 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, NJ ...................... For the construction of a new facility ............................................................................................ 200,000 Senator Lautenberg 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 Association, UT ............... For construction and project development funds ........................................................................... 200,000 Senator Bennett Centre County Industrial Development Corporation, PA .. For site preparation and redevelopment as part of the West End revitalization initiative ........... 200,000 Senator Specter Charleston Kanawha Housing Authority, Chas. WV ......... For new low-income housing at the Littlepage Terrace and Washington Manor public housing 

facilities in downtown Charleston, WV.

2,000,000 Senator Byrd 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Charlotte, 

NC.

For transforming vacant and blighted properties along the Statesville Avenue Corridor into affordable housing. 400,000 Senator Dole 

Child Abuse and Neglect Council Of Oakland County, 

Pontiac, MI.

For renovation and expansion of the facility .................................................................................. 500,000 Senators Levin, Stabenow 

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 

would otherwise be destroyed to the Rocky Boy’s Reservation.

750,000 Senators Tester, Baucus 

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 Reserve. 500,000 Senator Tester 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’ 

neighborhood’s low-income housing.

300,000 Senator Graham 

City of Cincinnati, OH ...................................................... For complete property acquisition, demolition, and remediation of the Queen City Barrel area 

to create an urban industrial park.

500,000 Senator Voinovich 

City of Council Bluffs, IA ................................................. For housing rehabilitation and construction in the Playland Park neighborhood located north of 

I–480 and west of I–29 in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

500,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley 

City of Craig, AK .............................................................. For the redevelopment of the abandoned cannery property in the City of Craig .......................... 350,000 Senator Murkowski 
231 

City of Detroit, MI ............................................................. For preservation and redevelopment of a public park and related business activities in the 

Corktown Neighborhood.

4,000,000 Senator Levin 

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, or 

in disrepair to affordable use properties.

250,000 Senator Durbin 

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 Authority ............. For site acquisition, demolition, remediation and/or redevelopment of priority projects in the 

30th Street Industrial Corridor.

200,000 Senator Kohl 

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 

supportive services.

600,000 Senators Smith, Wyden 

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 

City and I–80.

400,000 Senators Bennett, Hatch 

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 redevelopment of the former ACME power plant building. 500,000 Senators Voinovich, Brown 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 
232 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Grantee Project Funding Member 

City of Wilson, NC ............................................................ For clearing blighted structures from downtown Wilson and constructing new units for commercial occupancy. 500,000 Senator Burr City of Wrangell, AK ......................................................... For renovation of a community center ............................................................................................ 500,000 Senator Stevens Clark County Food Bank, Clark County, WA .................... For the construction of a food bank ............................................................................................... 750,000 Senator Murray 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, Kansas City, 

KS.

For the continuing revitalization efforts in the St. Peter’s neighborhood ...................................... 900,000 Senator Brownback 

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 Empowerment Zone. 200,000 Senator Byrd County of Hudson, NJ ....................................................... For transformation of the former Koppers Coke site in Kearny into a two million square foot 

industrial park that includes warehousing and distribution space.

400,000 Senators Menendez, Lautenberg 

County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA ................ For construction and renovation of the Lompoc Veterans Building ............................................... 850,000 Senator Boxer County of Tunica, MS ....................................................... For restoration of existing 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.

950,000 Senator Cochran 

Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD .......... For construction of a visitor center and recreational facilities ..................................................... 500,000 Senators Mikulski, Cardin Downtown Emergency Services Center, Seattle, WA ........ For the provision of 83 studio apartments for chronically homeless, mentally ill people ............ 750,000 Senators Murray, Cantwell Downtown Jackson Plaza Incorporated, Jackson, MS ...... For construction of a civic gathering plaza ................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Cochran East Moline Downtown Development, East Moline, IL ..... For capital improvements to infrastructure and development projects in downtown E. Moline, 

including acquisition and renovation of dilapidated structures.

250,000 Senator Durbin 

Eritrean Association, Seattle, WA ..................................... For the expansion of the current Community Center facility ......................................................... 300,000 Senator Murray Flagship Enterprise Center, Anderson, IN ........................ For technology and infrastructure improvements ........................................................................... 500,000 Senators Bayh, Lugar Four Bands Community Fund, Eagle Butte, SD ............... For the Four Bands Community Fund to enable the organization to capitalize a revolving loan 

program, and in addition provide business development assistance.

250,000 Senator Johnson 

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 store to 

serve the needs of Grant County.

500,000 Senator Bingaman 

Great Falls Development Authority, Great Falls, MT ........ For infrastructure related construction along Black Eagle Road ................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Tester Great Smoky Mountains Heritage Center, Townsend, 

TN.

For expansion and improvements to the Heritage Center .............................................................. 600,000 Senator Alexander 

Greene County Industrial Board, Greene County, AL ....... For industrial park development ..................................................................................................... 300,000 Senator Shelby Hawaii Public Housing Authority, HI ................................ For code enforcement and renovation of abandoned housing units to provide 22 housing units 

for low income individuals in Honolulu.

400,000 Senator Inouye 

Highline-West Seattle Mental Health, Burien, WA ........... For the provision of permanent, affordable housing and on-site mental health treatment and 

case management for 22 adults living with serious and persistent mental illness.

225,000 Senator Murray 
233 

Hocking Athens Pery Community Action, Glouster, OH .... For the renovation of the community center .................................................................................. 250,000 Senator Brown Hope Community Development Corporation, Charleston, 

WV.

For purchasing existing dilapidated properties for the construction of new homes ..................... 750,000 Senator Byrd 

Howard County, Ellicott City, MD ..................................... For construction and equipment for community rooms .................................................................. 400,000 Senator Mikulski International Institute of RI, Providence, RI .................... For building renovations to expand and improve community services to low-income individuals. 300,000 Senator Reed Iowa Dept of Economic Development, Des Moines, IA .... For improving the physical and economic health of city centers .................................................. 1,000,000 Senator Harkin Jackson County Board of Supervisors, Jackson County, 

MS.

For improvements and enhancements to the County’s multi-purpose community arena in 

Vancleave.

200,000 Senator Wicker 

King County Housing Authority, Seattle, WA .................... For neighborhood rehabilitation and improvement and community investment ............................ 1,000,000 Senator Murray Kitsap Mental Health Services, Bremerton, WA ............... For the provision of 16 residential and short-term stabilization beds for adults age 18 and 

over with severe or acute mental illness.

400,000 Senator Murray 

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 Orleans, LA .............. For the building of a mixed-income housing development in Lafayette ....................................... 200,000 Senator Landrieu Lake Area Improvement Corporation, Madison, SD ......... For expansion of the industrial park .............................................................................................. 200,000 Senator Johnson 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, NM .................. For preservation and renovation of Old Ribera School Building for use as a community and 

cultural center.

900,000 Senator Domenici 

MAC, Inc., Area Agency on Aging, Salisbury, MD ............ For the construction of a new building that will house programs and services for lower shore 

elders.

400,000 Senator Cardin 

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 dilapidated 

housing.

700,000 Senators Warner, Webb 

Nickerson Community Center, Providence, RI .................. For building renovations to provide permanent rental housing for veterans who are chronically 

homeless.

600,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse 

Northeast Community Center, Spokane County, WA ........ For the implementation of the third phase of the Center’s expansion to include a new partner, 

Partners for Families and Children.

500,000 Senator Murray 

Northeast Community College, Norfolk, NE ...................... For construction of the College Center at South Sioux City, NE .................................................... 500,000 Senators Ben Nelson, Hagel North-Missoula CDC, Missoula, MT .................................. For construction of a neighborhood center ..................................................................................... 1,000,000 Senators Baucus, Tester Northern Community Investment Corporation, St. 

Johnsburg, VT.

For the North Country Broadband Initiative, NH ............................................................................. 700,000 Senator Gregg 

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 Economic Opportunity.

250,000 Senator Sanders 

Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, Philadelphia, 

PA.

For acquisition and rehabilitation of vacant properties as part of a low and moderate income 

housing initiative.

200,000 Senator Specter 
234 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Grantee Project Funding Member 

Ojinjinkta Housing Development Corporation, LLC Rosebud Home Manufacturing Facility, SD. For the inventory and equipment needed for the construction of affordable homes for Native Americans. 600,000 Senator Thune 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 chronically 

homeless.

1,000,000 Senator Martinez 

Orange County Great Park Corporation, CA ..................... For improvements to the Orange County Great Park ...................................................................... 500,000 Senator Boxer 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 and 

low-to-moderate income residents of Hawaii who seek entrepreneurship as a means of escaping poverty.

300,000 Senator Inouye 

Para Los Ninos, Los Angeles, CA ..................................... For the renovation of the Vermont Avenue Family Resources Center ............................................ 300,000 Senator Boxer Pendleton Round-Up Association, Pendleton, OR ............ For the reconstruction and construction needs of the Pendelton Round-Up and Happy Canyon 

Facilities.

750,000 Senators Smith, Wyden 

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, Providence, RI ................. For purchase of a building to provide transitional housing for homeless families ...................... 700,000 Senators Reed, Whitehouse Provo City, UT ................................................................... For a parking facility ....................................................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Hatch, Bennett Puget Sound Educational Service Dist, Seattle, WA ........ For the construction of the Greenbridge Early Learning Center ..................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Murray 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, Ponemah, MN ...... For 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. 300,000 Senator Coleman 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/ 

safety improvements, and increased activity space.

200,000 Senator Murkowski 

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, Davenport, IA .................. For Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Pool in Scott County, Iowa ................... 400,000 Senators Harkin, Grassley 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 families. 1,000,000 Senator Bingaman Southwestern Vermont Council On Aging, VT .................. For Vermont Senior Centers Renovations and Maintenance ........................................................... 400,000 Senator Sanders 
235 

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, Wilmington, DE ......... For HVAC replacement in school for low-income children ............................................................. 300,000 Senators Biden, Carper St. Monica’s Home, Lincoln, NE ....................................... For construction of the new St. Monica’s Community Center for low income women and their 

families in need of substance abuse and mental health treatment.

440,000 Senator Ben Nelson 

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., Wilmington, DE ................... For handicap accessibility to a homeless shelter for women ........................................................ 500,000 Senators Biden, Carper 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, Belcourt, ND .......... For the construction of a youth center to serve Native Americans on the reservation ................. 500,000 Senators Dorgan, Conrad Vermont Department of Buildings and Services, VT ....... For Veterans Monuments ................................................................................................................. 250,000 Senator Sanders Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, Montpelier, VT For projects throughout the State of Vermont to enhance affordable housing and community 

development linked with land conservation and historic preservation.

4,000,000 Senator Leahy 

Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VT ................ For Vergennes Senior Housing Project ............................................................................................ 400,000 Senator Sanders Volunteers of America—Dakotas, Sioux Falls, SD .......... For construction of a new facility to house a residential substance treatment center for 

women and their children and for other services.

500,000 Senator Thune 

Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc., Mobile, AL .......... For construction of housing along Alabama’s Katrina-decimated Gulf Coast .............................. 1,400,000 Senator Sessions Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Hartford, CT .... For waterproofing activities in basement-level storage areas ....................................................... 700,000 Senators Dodd, Lieberman WECRD, Mountain Home, ID ............................................. For planning, design, and construction of an energy efficient, multi-use, community facility .... 300,000 Senator Craig West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Vernonia, OR ............. For restoration of services ............................................................................................................... 500,000 Senators Wyden, Smith Wick Neighbors, Inc. Youngstown, OH ............................. For replacing and improving existing infrastructure around the Wick neighborhood in Youngstown, OH to promote economic development. 700,000 Senator Brown Wilmington Housing Authority, Wilmington, DE ............... For exterior facade repair of fire damage to low-income housing ................................................ 500,000 Senators Biden, Carper Winrock International, Little Rock, AR ............................. For support of the Winrock International Regional Entrepreneur Assistance Program .................. 400,000 Senators Lincoln, Pryor Woodward Industrial Foundation, Woodward, OK ............ For construction of a multi-purpose community campus .............................................................. 200,000 Senator Inhofe World Trade Center of St. Louis, MO ............................... For the construction of a commercialization center ....................................................................... 1,000,000 Senator Bond YMCA of Eastern Union County, Elizabeth, NJ ................. For renovation of social services facilities ..................................................................................... 300,000 Senator Lautenberg YMCA of Pawtucket, Pawtucket, RI .................................. For purchase of equipment to expand and improve the quality and quantity of community 

services for low and moderate income families.

300,000 Senators Whitehouse, Reed 

YWCA of Northwest Georgia, Inc., Marietta, GA .............. For housing programs and staff which assist women, men and children who are survivors of 

domestic violence and sexual assault.

500,000 Senator Isakson 

YWCA Seattle-King Co-Snohomish County, Seattle WA ... For the improvement of the 3 housing projects acquired recently to expand the YWCA Snohomish County Regional Housing Network. 400,000 Senator Murray YWCA, Spokane, WA ......................................................... For the creation of Youth Development program space complete with fixtures, furnishings and 

equipment.

500,000 Senator Murray 
236 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES—Continued 

Grantee Project Funding Member 

YWCA, Yakima, WA ........................................................... For infrastructure improvements to Bringing It Home, Central Washington’s largest domestic 

violence facility.

1,000,000 Senator Murray 

NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES 

Grantee Project Funding Member 

Catholic Charities Housing Services, Yakima, WA .......... For the education of Hispanic communities regarding homeownership ........................................ $800,000 Senator Murray Center for Planning Excellence, LA .................................. For phase II of comprehensive planning for land use, transportation, and economic development in parishes and municipalities in Louisiana. 200,000 Senator Landrieu City of Racine, WI, Redevelopment Authority .................. For demolition of blighted buildings and vacant parcels, street beautification and restoration 

of a station platform at the Chicago-Northwestern Railroad depot.

1,000,000 Senator Kohl 

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 redevelopment. 1,000,000 Senator Dodd Covenant House Alaska Crisis Center, Anchorage, AK .... For relocation and expansion .......................................................................................................... 350,000 Senator Murkowski 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, NV .................. For purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties .............................................................. 850,000 Senator Reid Patrick F. Taylor Foundation, New Orleans, LA ................ For the acquisition, renovation and construction of affordable housing in the Greater New Orleans area. 200,000 Senator Vitter St. Louis County Economic Council, St. Louis, MO ......... For the planning and design for the Lemay Community Center .................................................... 500,000 Senator Bond 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-purpose community facility. 1,000,000 Senator Bingaman 
237 

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] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

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 
238 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (4,399,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (3,600,000 ) (¥799,000 ) ............................

(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 ............................
239 

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 appropriations) ...................................................................... 195,000 ............................ ............................ ¥195,000 ............................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 funds (rescission) (Sec. 128) ............................. ¥4,754 ............................ ............................ ∂4,754 ............................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 Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....... (229,654 ) (234,000 ) (234,000 ) (∂4,346 ) ............................
240 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (229,654 ) (234,000 ) (234,000 ) (∂4,346 ) ............................

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................... (300,000 ) (307,000 ) (307,000 ) (∂7,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (300,000 ) (307,000 ) (307,000 ) (∂7,000 ) ............................

National motor carrier safety program (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) ...................................................... ¥5,213 ............................ ¥14,904 ¥9,691 ¥14,904 Motor carrier safety (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) .................................................................................... ¥32,188 ............................ ¥1,390 ∂30,798 ¥1,390 Motor carrier safety grants (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) ........................................................................ ¥11,260 ............................ ¥4,231 ∂7,029 ¥4,231 Motor carrier safety operations and programs (HTF) (rescission of contract authority) .......................................... ¥1,816 ............................ ¥4,887 ¥3,071 ¥4,887 

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 contract authorization) ......................................... (107,750 ) (105,500 ) (105,500 ) (¥2,250 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (107,750 ) (105,500 ) (105,500 ) (¥2,250 ) ............................

Operations and Research (HTF)(legislative proposal) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................ ............................ (122,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥122,000 ) 

(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 contract authorization) .......................................... (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) ............................ ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) ............................ ............................

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................. (599,250 ) (619,500 ) (619,500 ) (∂20,250 ) ............................

(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 grants (23 USC 408) ......................................... (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) ............................ ............................Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (23 USC 410) .......................................................... (131,000 ) (139,000 ) (139,000 ) (∂8,000 ) ............................High visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ ............................
241 

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) (sec. 141) .................................................................... ¥12,197 ............................ ¥1,315 ∂10,882 ¥1,315 National driver register (rescission of contract authority) (sec. 142) ...................................................................... ¥120 ............................ ¥534 ¥414 ¥534 Highway traffic safety grants (rescission of contract authority) (sec. 143) ............................................................ ¥10,529 ............................ ¥50,000 ¥39,471 ¥50,000 

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 Corporation .......................................................................... 475,000 ............................ 550,000 ∂75,000 ∂550,000 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 Corporation ................................................................. ............................ 275,000 ............................ ............................ ¥275,000 Efficiency incentive grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (rescission) ....................................... ............................ ............................ ¥46,800 ¥46,800 ¥46,800 

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 (liquidation of contract authorization) ............ (6,855,000 ) (8,670,000 ) (8,670,000 ) (∂1,815,000 ) ............................

(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 ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
242 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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) (liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (6,855,000 ) (8,670,000 ) (8,670,000 ) (∂1,815,000 ) ............................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 ) 
243 

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 Administration ................................................................. 154,464 167,927 168,927 ∂14,463 ∂1,000 

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 ) 
244 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

(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 Intergovernmental Relations ......................................... (2,670 ) ............................ (2,829 ) (∂159 ) (∂2,829 ) 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 Housing .................................................................... (1,620 ) ............................ (1,669 ) (∂49 ) (∂1,669 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development ................................................ (1,520 ) ............................ (1,779 ) (∂259 ) (∂1,779 ) Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner ..................................................................... (3,600 ) ............................ (3,936 ) (∂336 ) (∂3,936 ) Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research ............................................................... (1,570 ) ............................ (1,491 ) (¥79 ) (∂1,491 ) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ..................................................... (1,950 ) ............................ (720 ) (¥1,230 ) (∂720 ) 

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 ) 
245 

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 ............................
246 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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) (emergency) ................................................................. 3,000,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000,000 ............................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 ............................
247 

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 
248 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 ............................
249 

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 Development .................................................................. 40,636,952 39,075,851 42,363,811 ∂1,726,859 ∂3,287,960 

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 ............................
250 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 ) 

Æ