28–003 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–495 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007 

JUNE 9, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5576] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban 

Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Operating plan and reprogramming procedures ..................................... ........ 2 

Relationship with budget offices ............................................................... ........ 3 

The effect of guaranteed spending ............................................................ ........ 3 

Tabular summary ....................................................................................... ........ 4 

Committee hearings ................................................................................... ........ 4 

Program, project, and activity ................................................................... ........ 5 

Title I—Department of Transportation .................................................... 2 5 

Title II—Department of the Treasury ...................................................... 63 90 

Title III—Department of Housing and Urban Development .................. 80 109 

Title IV—The Judiciary ............................................................................. 134 163 

Title V—District of Columbia .................................................................... 142 168 

Title VI—Executive Office of the President and Funds 

Appropriated to the President ........................................................... 176 177 

Title VII—Independent Agencies: 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ....... 189 185 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ............................................. 189 186 

Election Assistance Commission ........................................................ 190 186 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ............................................ 190 187 

Federal Election Commission ............................................................. 190 187 

Federal Labor Relations Authority .................................................... 191 188 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................... 192 188 

General Services Administration ....................................................... 192 189 

Merit Systems Protection Board ........................................................ 203 198 

Morris K. Udall Foundation ............................................................... 204 198 

National Archives and Records Administration ............................... 205 199 

National Credit Union Administration ............................................. 206 201 

National Transportation Safety Board .............................................. 207 202 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ......................................... 208 203 

Office of Government Ethics .............................................................. 208 203 

Office of Personnel Management ....................................................... 208 204 

Office of Special Counsel .................................................................... 212 207 

Selective Service System .................................................................... 212 207 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ...................... 213 208 

United States Postal Service .............................................................. 213 208 

United States Tax Court .................................................................... 214 209 

Title VIII—General Provisions—This Act ................................................ 215 209 

Title IX—General Provisions: Departments, Agencies, and Corporations ......................................................................................................... 222 210 

House of Representatives Report Requirements: 

Constitutional authority ..................................................................... ........ 213 

Statement of general performance goals and objectives .................. ........ 214 

Appropriations not authorized by law ............................................... ........ 214 

Transfers of funds ............................................................................... ........ 216 

Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e) (Ramseyer rule) ................. ........ 219 

Comparison with the budget resolution ............................................ ........ 266 

Five-year outlay projections ............................................................... ........ 267 

Financial assistance to state and local governments ....................... ........ 267 

Rescissions ........................................................................................... ........ 233 

Changes in the application of existing law ....................................... ........ 233 

Full Committee votes .......................................................................... ........ ...........

Tabular summary of the bill .............................................................. ........ ...........

OPERATING PLAN AND REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES

The Committee continues to have a particular interest in being 

informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not change 

either the total amount available in an account or any of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally available, represent a 

significant departure from budget plans presented to the Committee in an agency’s budget justifications and supporting documents, the basis of this appropriations Act. 

Consequently, the Committee directs the departments, agencies, 

boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded at or in excess 

of $100,000,000 in this bill, to consult with the Committee prior to 

each change from the approved budget levels in excess of $500,000 

between programs, activities, object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided for in the Committee report accompanying 

this bill. For agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded at less than $100,000,000 in this bill, the reprogramming threshold shall be $250,000 between programs, activities, initiatives object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided 

for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. Additionally, 

the Committee expects to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which involve less than the above-mentioned 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

amounts. If such actions would have the effect of significantly 

changing an agency’s funding requirements in future years, or if 

programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee’s reports 

are affected by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be 

approved by the Committee regardless of the amount proposed to 

be moved. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and activities prior to 

the planned implementation of such reorganizations. 

The Committee also directs that the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, as well as 

the Judiciary, the General Services Administration, and the Office 

of Personnel Management, shall submit operating plans, signed by 

the respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for the 

Committee’s review within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its inquiries and requests for information and assistance through the 

budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural affinity and 

relationship between these organizations and the Committee which 

makes such a relationship workable. The Committee reiterates its 

longstanding position that while the Committee reserves the right 

to call upon all offices in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and these 

entities must normally be through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and commissions during the past year. The 

workload generated by the budget process is large and growing, 

and therefore, a positive, responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process. 

THE EFFECT OF GUARANTEED SPENDING

Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget Committee, 

in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– 

21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new additional spending categories or ‘‘firewalls’’, the highway category and 

the mass transit category. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA– 

LU) extended the highway and mass transit firewalls through fiscal year 2009. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21) provided a similar treatment for certain aviation programs, which were later extended in 

the Vision-100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. These Acts 

have produced the same results: they significantly raised spending, 

and they have had the effect of prohibiting the Appropriations 

Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee noted during deliberations 

on these bills, the Acts essentially created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally important programs not protected by funding guarantees and to address emerging priorities, 

such as homeland security and overseas military requirements, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

within projected budget totals. In addition, the reorganization of 

the Committee in the 109th Congress posed additional challenges 

in this regard, because funding guarantees for selected transportation programs compete in the budget process against funding for 

non-transportation agencies such as the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 

enforcement of anti-terrorism and money laundering activities in 

the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the General Services Administration, and the Judiciary. In addition, funding guarantees skew transportation priorities inappropriately, by 

providing increases to highway, transit, and airport spending while 

leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, FRA and Amtrak to 

scramble for the remaining resources. As in past years, the Committee has done all in its power, considering this environment, to 

produce a balanced bill providing adequately for all modes of transportation as well as all non-transportation programs under the jurisdiction of this bill. 

QUALITY OF BUDGET DOCUMENTS

For years, the Committee has directed departments and agencies 

to improve the budget justification document quality and presentation by including relevant and specific budget information. While 

the Committee has seen some improvement in a few submissions, 

most justifications continue to be filled with references to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), drowning in pleonasm, and 

yet still devoid of useful information. The Committee strongly encourages the administration to use a meaningful system of evaluation to justify proposed program funding levels, as long as the basis 

for the evaluations will also be shared with the Committee. The 

Committee finds little use for a budget justification which does not 

reveal specific details of the measurable indicators and standards 

used to evaluate a program’s performance, relevance, or adherence 

to underlying authorization statute. Further, the Committee has 

little patience for secretaries and administrators who cannot explain the rationale behind a program’s funding level other than 

‘‘the PART score,’’ ‘‘getting to green,’’ or ‘‘this is what OMB provided.’’ The Committee welcomes the input from the agencies, and 

is very interested in the methodologies used by the administration 

to fund various program priorities. 

TABULAR SUMMARY

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2006 

and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2007 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in this bill. Pursuant to House 

rules, each of these hearings was open to the public. The Committee received testimony from cabinet officers, agency heads, inspectors general, and other officials of the executive branch in 

areas under the bill’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee has 

considered written material submitted for the hearing record by 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

Members of Congress, private citizens, local government entities, 

and private organizations. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 

2007 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2007, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall mean 

any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and 

joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 

definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment 

grants, Federal Transit Administration. 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 accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by 

subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 

committee of conference. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $84,051,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 92,742,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 92,558,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +8,507,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥184,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $92,558,000 for the salaries and expenses of the 

various offices comprising the office of the secretary. The Committee’s recommendation includes individual funding for all of the offices within the office of the secretary, as has been done in past 

years, rather than consolidating them as proposed in the budget request. The following table compares the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level to the fiscal year 2007 budget estimate and the Committee’s 

recommendation by office: 

Fiscal year 

2006 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2007 estimate House recommended 

Immediate office of the secretary .......................... $2,176,000 $2,255,000 $2,255,000 

Office of the deputy secretary ................................ 691,000 717,000 717,000 

Office of the executive secretariat ......................... 1,428,000 1,478,000 1,478,000 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for 

policy .................................................................. 11,534,000 11,934,000 11,684,000 

Board of contract appeals ...................................... 690,000 707,000 707,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

Fiscal year 

2006 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2007 estimate House recommended 

Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization ................................................................ 1,252,000 1,286,000 1,286,000 

Office of the chief information officer ................... 11,776,000 12,281,000 12,281,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental 

affairs ................................................................. 2,270,000 2,319,000 2,319,000 

Office of the general counsel ................................. 15,031,000 15,681,000 15,681,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and 

programs ............................................................ 8,400,000 10,002,000 10,002,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration ..................................................................... 21,811,000 25,108,000 25,108,000 

Office of public affairs ........................................... 1,891,000 1,932,000 1,932,000 

Office of intelligence and security ......................... 2,013,000 2,655,000 2,722,000 

Office of emergency transportation ........................ 3,089,000 4,386,000 4,386,000 

Total ...................................................... $84,051,000 $92,742,000 $92,558,000 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy.—The 

Committee provides a total of $11,684,000 for the office of the 

under secretary of transportation for policy, a reduction of $250,000 

below the requested level. The adjustment to the request is shown 

below. 

Deny transfer of two full-time equivalent positions (FTE) ..........................¥$250,000 

The Committee denies the request to create a new office, the security policy office, within the office of the under secretary of transportation for policy. In addition, the Committee denies the transfer 

of two FTEs from the office of intelligence and security (OIS) to 

this office. The Committee does not understand the need for the 

new office or how creation of a new office will enhance security or 

operations. Further, the Committee is concerned that the dissection 

of OIS security functions and the creation of a new bureaucratic 

layer between the secretary and some of those functions will create 

inefficiencies and duplication of effort. The Committee is concerned 

that this proposal will result only in the dilution of security. 

Office of intelligence and security.—The Committee provides 

$2,722,000 for the office of intelligence and security, an increase of 

$67,000 above the requested level. Adjustments to the request are 

detailed below. 

Deny transfer of two FTEs ............................................................................. +$250,000 

Deny funding for one FTE .............................................................................. ¥187,000 

Deny transfer of two FTEs.—As mentioned above, the Committee 

denies the transfer of two existing FTEs from OIS to the office of 

the under secretary of transportation for policy. OIS has served as 

the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) primary point of contact 

with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Homeland 

Security Council, and various security-related working groups since 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was transferred 

to DHS. OIS advises DOT executives on policy issues related to intelligence, information sharing, and national security strategies coordinated in the Homeland Security Council. Further, OIS coordinates across all elements of DOT. Rapidly emerging threats against 

the transportation system may require quick decisions and immediate implementation of protective measures. The Committee believes that a robust security function should include all elements 

of security in a single office with a direct line of communication to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

the Secretary of Transportation, and therefore, denies that budget 

request to add needless layers of bureaucracy to this vital function. 

Deny funding for one FTE.—In addition, the Committee denies 

$183,000 in funding that was not addressed, justified, or reflected 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget appendix or the Office of the Secretary of Transportation’s (OST) congressional justification for a 

‘‘senior management position associated with reorganization.’’ The 

Committee is confused as OST’s own congressional budget justification stated that no additional FTEs were required or necessary for 

this office. In addition, OST requested that this Committee include 

a provision in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental allowing OST to 

obtain detailees from modal agencies, free of charge, to help staff 

OIS. It is inconsistent that an office that requests funding for an 

additional FTE and detailees from the modes would also seek to 

transfer two existing FTEs to another office. 

Disadvantaged business enterprise.—The Committee is aware 

that the Department of Transportation recently promulgated a new 

rule revising and updating its regulations concerning the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) in concessions 

activities of airports receiving federal financial assistance from the 

airport improvement program. One of the issues addressed in the 

new rule is a personal net worth standard for program eligibility 

purposes. The Committee is also aware that certain industry 

groups and others have raised concerns regarding the standard and 

its implementation and have petitioned the department to initiate 

additional rulemaking on this matter. The Committee urges the department to carefully review these concerns and the basis for the 

standard. 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee urges the 

department to improve the quality of the budget submissions and 

to include the same level of detail that was provided in the congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2003. Some of the 

budget documents submitted for fiscal year 2007 did not adhere to 

that standard. Therefore, the Committee again directs the department to submit its congressional justification materials at the same 

level of detail provided in the congressional justifications presented 

in fiscal year 2003. Further, the department is directed to include 

in the budget justification funding levels for the prior year, current 

year, and budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and 

program elements. Each budget submitted by the department must 

also include detailed justification for the incremental funding increases and additional FTEs being requested above the enacted 

level, by program, activity, or program element. 

In addition, the Committee notes that many general provisions 

included in the President’s budget request are not justified, addressed, nor presented in any DOT justification. Therefore, the 

Committee directs DOT to justify each general provision proposed 

either in its relevant modal congressional justification, or in the 

OST congressional justification. 

OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its justification of 

changes from the current year to the request. To ensure that each 

adjustment is identified, the Committee directs OST in future congressional justifications to include detailed information in tabular 

format which identifies specific changes in funding from the curVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

rent year to the budget year for each office, including each office 

within the office of the secretary. 

Operating plan.—The Committee directs the department to submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2007, signed by the secretary 

for review by the Committees on Appropriations of both the House 

and Senate within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. The operating 

plan should include funding levels for the various offices, programs 

and initiatives detailed down to the object class or program element covered in the budget justification and supporting documents 

or referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports, and 

the statement of the managers. 

Bill language.—The bill continues language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the office of the secretary for 

salaries and expenses. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $8,465,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,821,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,821,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +356,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the secretary 

on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity precepts in all of the department’s official actions and programs. This office is responsible 

for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in 

federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 

This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department 

of Transportation employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $8,821,000 for the office of civil rights, 

the same as the budget request. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $14,850,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,910,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥1,850,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +4,090,000 

This appropriation finances those research activities and studies 

concerned with the planning, analysis, and information development needed to support the secretary’s responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also finances the 

staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, 

educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, a decrease of 

$1,850,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $4,090,000 

above the budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................................... ($116,834,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (120,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ (+3,166,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ (+120,000,000) 1Proposed without limitation. 

The working capital fund (WCF) was created to provide common 

administrative services to the various modes and outside entities 

that desire those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is 

financed through negotiated agreements with the department’s operating administrations and other governmental elements requiring 

the center’s capabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $120,000,000 on the 

working capital fund. The budget request proposed a limitless program level for the fund in fiscal year 2007. The Committee’s recommendation is appropriate considering the funding levels of the 

operations and administrative accounts. 

Modal usage of WCF.—Consistent with past practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2007 congressional 

justifications for each of the modal administrations, to account for 

increases or decreases in WCF billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the modes rather than anticipated by 

WCF managers. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................................................. $891,000 ($18,367,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................................... 891,000 (18,367,000) 

Recommended in the bill ...................................................................................... 891,000 (18,367,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................ – – – (– – –) 

The minority business resource center of the office of small and 

disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining 

short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified 

businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation fully funds the budget request of $495,000 

to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to exceed $18,367,000, 

and $396,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
10 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,970,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 2,970,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,970,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing 

contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that 

serves DOT-wide goals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $2,970,000 for this program, equal to 

both the fiscal year 2006 funding level and the budget request. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 1 ....................................................... $49,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 59,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥49,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥59,400,000 1Does not include $4,000,000 in unobligated balances in salaries and expenses reprogrammed to this account in fiscal year 2006, consistent with section 511 of public law 108–447. 

The President’s budget included funds for the new Department 

of Transportation headquarters building, which would consolidate 

all of the department’s headquarters operating administration 

functions (except for the Federal Aviation Administration) from 

various locations around the Washington, DC metropolitan area 

into a leased building within the central employment area of the 

District of Columbia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Without prejudice, the Committee does not provide funding in 

fiscal year 2007 for the new headquarters building due to budget 

constraints. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $59,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 67,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +7,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +67,000,000 

The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was originally created 

by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to 

continue air service to communities that had received federally 

mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently 

provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that 

meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to airVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
11 

craft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently 

appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and 

stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must 

be used to finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in 

fees, the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other 

funds available to the agency. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to fund the EAS program 

at a total of $50,000,000, solely from new overflight fee collections 

credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and changes the 

program to require communities share in the cost of air service. 

The Committee finds the budget proposal unrealistic considering 

that in fiscal year 2006 the department came to the Committee 

seeking additional funding for the EAS program as several communities were in jeopardy of losing air service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of EAS in fiscal year 2007 of $117,000,000, a $7,600,000 increase above the 

level provided in fiscal year 2006. This funding consists of an appropriation of $67,000,000 and $50,000,000 to be derived from overflight fee collections. In addition, bill language is included that allows the secretary to transfer up to $10,000,000 to the EAS program from the small community air service development program, 

if needed. 

The Committee notes that workload has increased significantly 

as the number of EAS subsidized communities has increased by 

more than 50 percent since 1996, from 97 to 151. The changing 

structure of the industry is also having dramatic effects on services 

at small communities and creates challenges. In addition, VISION 

100 resulted in new responsibilities for the department and established six new pilot programs. To help meet these responsibilities, 

the Committee provides this office with two new FTE, representing 

half of the request. 

The Committee includes language (sec. 101) to ensure prompt 

availability of funds for obligation to air carriers providing service 

under the EAS program. The language removes an unintended 

penalty whereby if $50,000,000 is made immediately available by 

the FAA to the EAS program at the beginning of each fiscal year, 

the FAA must take that amount from its appropriations, without 

the ability to credit back amounts transferred from the FAA once 

sufficient overflight fees are available. Without this language, the 

result would be a permanent reduction in the appropriations to the 

FAA. The Committee has also included language that allows the 

secretary to take into consideration the subsidy requirements of 

carriers when selecting between carriers competing to provide service to a community. 

The bill includes a provision (sec. 104) prohibiting the use of 

funds to implement an essential air service program that requires 

local participation. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
12 

COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2006 ............................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... ¥$50,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥50,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................ ¥50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Public Law 107–42) provided $5,000,000,000 to compensate air 

carriers for direct losses incurred during the federal ground stop of 

civil aviation after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and 

for incremental losses incurred between September 11 and December 31, 2001. To date, of the $5,000,000,000 appropriated, 

$4,603,452,933 of direct compensation payments have been made 

(net of repayments from carriers including a $29,000,000 repayment from Federal Express). Also to date, a total of $325,000,000 

has been rescinded by Congress as surplus to need leaving a current balance of approximately $71,000,000 in the fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes language that rescinds $50,000,000 from 

the compensation for air carriers, consistent with the budget request. The Department of Transportation has recalibrated its litigation risk in outstanding administrative and court cases. The rescission leaves a balance of approximately $21,000,000, which DOT 

states will cover any potential liabilities from unresolved claims or 

contingent liabilities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 102. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ‘‘office of the secretary, salaries and expenses’’ to ‘‘minority business 

outreach’’. 

Section 103. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 104. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to implement an essential air service local cost 

share participation program. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role 

in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 

within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act instructed the Secretary of Commerce 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
13 

to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, 

operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 

development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates 

for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil 

aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, independent agency named the 

Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

After further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 

agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 

Board. When the Department of Transportation began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became one of several modal administrations within the department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of the Airline 

Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at the end of 1984. 

FAA’s mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, 

and decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation 

security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $8,104,140,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,366,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,360,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +255,860,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥6,000,000 

This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and 

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, medical, 

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 

The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic 

system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of 

aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air 

regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen 

as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,360,000,000 for FAA operations, 

an increase of $255,860,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 

2006, and $6,000,000 below the budget request. 

A comparison of the fiscal year 2007 budget request to the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
14 

Budget activity Fiscal year 2007 

request 

Fiscal year 2007 

recommendation 

Air traffic organization ................................................................................................ $6,704,223,000 $6,698,728,000 

Aviation safety ............................................................................................................. 981,668,000 997,718,000 

Commercial space transportation ............................................................................... 11,985,000 11,985,000 

Financial services 1 ...................................................................................................... ............................ 92,227,000 

Human resources 1 ....................................................................................................... ............................ 87,850,000 

Region and center operations 1 ................................................................................... ............................ 272,821,000 

Staff offices 1 ............................................................................................................... 668,125,000 175,392,000 

Information services .................................................................................................... ............................ 36,779,000 

Adjustments ................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥14,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................................... $8,366,000,000 $8,360,000,000 

1 Estimate includes such funds under ‘‘Staff offices’’, as follows: Financial services, $94,704,000; Human resources, $87,850,000; Region 

and center operations coordination, $272,821,000; Office of information services, $36,770,000. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $11,787,000,000 of the total appropriation from 

the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the appropriation 

($3,516,000,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, 77 percent of the FAA’s costs will be 

borne by air travelers and industries using those services. The remaining 23 percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize FAA services. 

STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

According to Administration estimates, fiscal year 2007 will continue the recent trend where necessary outlays for FAA programs 

outstrip the revenues from aviation users deposited into the airport 

and airway trust fund. The following table compares trust fund 

revenue to trust fund outlays for the past three fiscal years. As the 

table indicates, under current estimates the Federal Government is 

not only spending all the revenues coming into the trust fund, it 

is going beyond that, and spending down the cash balance. The Administration estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2007, the uncommitted cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately 

$2,706,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 

Trust fund revenue 1 ................................................................. $10,830,000,000 $11,241,000,000 $11,997,000,000 

Trust fund outlays .................................................................... 11,209,000,000 12,332,000,000 12,167,000,000 

Difference .................................................................................. ¥379,000,000 ¥1,091,000,000 ¥170,000,000 

1 Includes excise taxes, offsetting collections, and interest on trust fund cash balance. 

It is imperative for the agency to lower its operating costs and 

find ways to be more efficient in all its operations. For several 

years, the Committee has indicated that improvement was needed 

in the area of personnel costs. The average full-time equivalent 

(FTE) workyear cost for fiscal year 2006 was $142,587 and expected to increase to $145,450 for fiscal year 2007. FAA’s workyear 

costs have historically been and remain among the highest of all 

federal agencies. Average sick leave costs historically have been 20 

percent higher than the government average, raising the agency’s 

staffing costs. Although FAA has made progress in this area, the 

current average yearly sick leave consumed is 10.80 days per FAA 

employee. In addition, special pays will cost the agency 

$349,740,000 in fiscal year 2007. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
15 

Given the severe budget constraints facing the nation, the Committee directs FAA to continue focusing on ways to reduce sick 

leave, to improve productivity and lessen the need for additional 

staffing resources in future years. 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The bill provides $6,698,728,000 for air traffic services, a reduction of $5,495,000 from the budget request. These resources would 

be managed by FAA’s air traffic organization. Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and described below: 

Amount 

Contract tower base program ............................................................... +$3,242,000 

Contract tower cost-sharing program .................................................. +263,000 

BTS aviation statistics .......................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

NAS handoff ........................................................................................... ¥7,000,000 

Contract tower program.—The bill includes $97,500,000, an increase of $3,242,000 above the budget estimate of $94,258,000, to 

continue the contract tower base program. The President’s budget 

does not reflect estimates for operations at 12 new towers entering 

the program during fiscal year 2007. 

In addition, the bill provides $8,000,000, an increase of $263,000 

above the budget estimate, to continue the contract tower costsharing program. The Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program that provides safety benefits to small communities. 

Communities in this program as of January 1, 2006 are shown 

below: 

Airport name State 

King Salmon .................................................................................................................................................................. AK 

Fayetteville .................................................................................................................................................................... AR 

Rogers Municipal-Carter Field ...................................................................................................................................... AR 

Springdale ..................................................................................................................................................................... AR 

Laughlin/Bullhead City .................................................................................................................................................. AZ 

Hawthorne ..................................................................................................................................................................... CA 

Waterbury/Oxford ........................................................................................................................................................... CT 

Bloomington .................................................................................................................................................................. IN 

Columbus Municipal ..................................................................................................................................................... IN 

Gary Regional ................................................................................................................................................................ IN 

Muncie/Delaware County ............................................................................................................................................... IN 

Garden City ................................................................................................................................................................... KS 

Barkley regional (Paducah) ........................................................................................................................................... KY 

Sawyer ........................................................................................................................................................................... MI 

Jefferson City ................................................................................................................................................................. MO 

Joplin Regional .............................................................................................................................................................. MO 

Smith Reynolds (Winston-Salem) ................................................................................................................................. NC 

Lebanon Municipal ........................................................................................................................................................ NH 

Lea County/Hobbs ......................................................................................................................................................... NM 

Elko ................................................................................................................................................................................ NV 

Latrobe .......................................................................................................................................................................... PA 

Williamsport/Lycoming County ...................................................................................................................................... PA 

Greenville Donaldson Center ......................................................................................................................................... SC 

Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach ........................................................................................................................................... SC 

Walla Walla Regional .................................................................................................................................................... WA 

Morgantown ................................................................................................................................................................... WV 

The Committee recognizes that the number of airports participating in the cost sharing program fluctuates regularly because of 

changes in air traffic activity. In order to prevent program disruptions and provide more certainty, the Committee allows FAA to use 

unsubscribed funds from the contract tower base line program to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
16 

avoid elimination of communities from the cost share towers program. However, FAA should only employ this flexibility with surplus funds in the base line contract tower program, after all baseline contract tower obligations have been fulfilled. 

Controller staffing.—According to FAA, the agency expects that 

over the next 10 years, 72 percent of its 15,000 controllers will become eligible to retire. The FAA is currently updating its staffing 

plan submitted in December 2004. This update will be based on a 

refined methodology and will incorporate new estimates of future 

traffic and retirement projections, and recent productivity gains. 

Consistent with the plan and with FAA’s request, the bill provides 

$18,220,000 for salaries, benefits, training, and ancillary support 

costs associated with 1,136 new hires, for a net increase of at least 

132 in controller work force in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee agrees with FAA that a one for one replacement 

of retiring controllers is not prudent, as it would not assume productivity improvements from procedural changes, facility consolidation, or even new technology. The business-like mindset of the air 

traffic organization has begun to make productivity improvements 

a reality, and further productivity will continue to lessen the need 

for additional personnel. Currently, FAA is taking steps to achieve 

savings of 10 percent by 2010 in controller staff costs through productivity improvements, and realized the first three percent of this 

goal in 2005. In addition, the Committee believes that the ability 

to waive the mandatory retirement age is a good hedge against the 

retirement surge in future years. 

Bureau of transportation statistics studies.—The Committee provides $2,000,000, half of the requested amount for the aviation statistical studies to be conducted by the bureau of transportation statistics (BTS), under the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. The Committee directs BTS to perform only those 

functions and studies that are relevant to FAA’s mission. Further, 

the Committee directs DOT to provide to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations an accounting of how the funds 

were spent and how FAA uses that data to fulfill its mission. 

National airspace system handoff.—The Committee recommends 

a reduction of $7,000,000 below the budget estimate, for a total of 

$87,400,000 in NAS handoff funding. 

New York/New Jersey airspace redesign.—The Committee notes 

that the executive summary of the FAA’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the redesign of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia regional airspace states, ‘‘Mitigation measures to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for these 

(noise) impacts will be considered in the Final EIS.’’ The Committee directs the FAA to provide a letter report to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 7, 2007 on the 

specific mitigation measures that will be considered to address 

noise impacts of the redesign. 

AVIATION SAFETY

The bill provides $997,718,000 for aviation safety, an increase of 

$16,050,000 above the budget request. Recommended adjustments 

to the budget are described below. 

Additional safety inspectors and engineers ......................................... +$16,000,000 

Professional aerial application support system ................................... +50,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
17 

Aviation safety inspectors and aircraft certification staff.—The 

Committee provides $48,711,612 for aviation safety, an increase of 

$16,000,000 over the budget request to increase safety critical staff 

in the office of aviation flight standards (AFS) and the office of aircraft certification (AIR). 

The fiscal year 2006 Act provided an additional $12,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 budget request for 238 new safety personnel, of which $8,000,000 was for AFS inspectors, and $4,000,000 

for AIR safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and scientists. The FAA 

states that after accounting for the fiscal year 2006 across the 

board cut and mandatory pay raise, only 87 new safety staff, 55 for 

AFS and 32 for AIR, could be hired. The additional $16,000,000 

provided in this bill, together with a $4,000,000 reprogramming request, will enable the FAA to increase safety personnel to the full 

238, as intended. 

Although the Committee did not specify the number of staff for 

each office, it did provide clear direction regarding the distribution 

of funding. The carefully negotiated agreement stated that 

$4,000,000, or one-third of the total increase provided in fiscal year 

2006 was for AIR and $8,000,000, or two-thirds of the increase was 

for AFS. Based on these figures, FAA states that the total new 

hires would have been 182 for AFS and 56 for AIR. The Committee 

directs the FAA to hire AFS and AIR staff consistent with the direction in the fiscal year 2006 Act to ensure that the funding increases provided in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 appropriations, plus 

the 2006 reprogramming result in the same proportional increase, 

for a total increase of 182 new staff in AFS safety staff and 56 new 

AIR staff. This funding should not affect FAA’s plans for filling existing vacant positions in either AIR or AFS. 

Further, funds provided for the offices of aircraft certification and 

flight standards are designated congressional items of interest. The 

Committee prohibits the reprogramming of funds between the two 

offices, or for any other purpose within or outside of the aviation 

safety office, including the hiring of other types of personnel within 

aviation safety. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a 

summary by March 1, 2007 regarding the use of the funds provided, including, but not limited to the total full-time equivalent 

staff years in the offices of aircraft certification and flight standards, total employees, vacancies, positions under active recruitment 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee notes that loss of certification staff has negatively impacted the domestic aviation industry’s ability to bring 

new products to the marketplace, which directly affects the aviation industry’s global leadership and competitiveness. 

Professional Aerial Application Support System.—The recommendation includes $50,000 to continue the National agricultural aviation research and education foundation’s professional aerial application support system. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the office of commercial space transportation, consistent with the budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
18 

BASE TRANSFERS

Total funding for staff offices increased significantly from the fiscal year 2006 funding level. However, a significant portion of the 

increase results from a number of proposed activity and personnel 

transfers from other offices within the air traffic organization. The 

budget also proposed transfers among the staff offices. The Committee agrees that these transfers will properly align functions and 

positions among the offices. 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $92,227,000 for the office of financial services, a reduction of $2,482,000 from the budget request. 

The President’s budget proposed $16,200,000 for unanticipated increases in Delphi maintenance and operation costs. The Committee 

is concerned that DOT did not foresee an increase of this magnitude for the complex department-wide financial management system. Therefore, the Committee provides a total funding level of 

$13,800,000 for Delphi, and urges DOT to explore ways to maintain 

and operate the system more efficiently. In addition, the Committee provides a total of $482,000 to support 5 new positions at 

half-year funding for expanded contract oversight. 

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Committee recommends $87,850,000, consistent with the 

budget request. The increase from fiscal year 2006 is due to base 

transfers for labor relations positions, payroll services, and human 

resources positions from other FAA offices. The Committee notes 

that FAA is expanding a successful pilot program began in fiscal 

year 2003 to better contain workers’ compensation costs for the 

agency. FAA’s target goal is to increase the total one-year workers 

compensation cost avoidance by two percent in fiscal year 2007. 

REGION AND CENTER OPERATION

The Committee recommends $272,821,000 for the region and center operations, as requested. 

STAFF OFFICES

Office of General Counsel.—The Committee recommends 

$38,186,000 for this office. The funding level provides a total of 

$229,890 for four new positions for expanded contract oversight at 

half year funding, representing a reduction of $575,000 below the 

budget request. 

ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS

Personnel compensation and benefits.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $8,000,000 in agency-wide personnel compensation and benefits costs due to budget constraints. 

Unfilled executive positions.—The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,000,000, reflecting the unfilled roster of 18 executive 

positions in the agency, including 7 which were not under active 

recruitment. Past hearing records indicate that, at any given time, 

the agency is likely to have between 10 and 20 unfilled executive 

positions. For an agency with 159 executive positions, this level of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
19 

openings may not be problematic. However, it does indicate excess 

costs are being budgeted for positions that are not likely to be filled 

in the entirety of the fiscal year. 

Working capital fund costs.—The recommendation allows 

$23,913,000 for working capital fund costs, a reduction of 

$1,000,000 below the budget estimate. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Manned auxiliary flight service stations.—The bill includes the 

limitation prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned 

auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. The 

FAA budget includes no funding to operate such stations during 

fiscal year 2007. 

Second career training program.—Once again this year, the bill 

includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second career 

training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President’s budget 

request. 

Sunday premium pay.—The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 

worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay 

(5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ‘‘An employee who performs work 

during a regularly scheduled 8–hour period of service which is not 

overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of 

which is performed on Sunday is entitled to . . . premium pay at 

a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.’’ Disregarding 

the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General 

decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform 

work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required 

immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time 

scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and 

July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency’s annual 

operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2006. 

Aviation User Fees.—The bill includes a limitation carried for 

several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize or implement any new unauthorized user fees. 

Nonprofit safety standard setting organization.—The Committee 

retains a provision that allows the use of funds to enter into an 

agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop safety standards. 

Aeronautical charting and cartography.—The bill maintains the 

provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 

through the working capital fund (WCF). Public Law 106–181 authorized the transfer of these activities from the Department of 

Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee supported. 

The Committee believes this work should continue to be conducted 

by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the WCF. 

Store gift cards and gift certificates.—The bill maintains the limitation in effect since fiscal year 2004 prohibiting FAA from using 

funds to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a govVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
20 

ernment-issued credit card. This provision responds to abuses documented by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,514,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 2,503,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,110,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +595,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +607,000,000 

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal 

means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 

facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research 

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the 

safety and capacity of the airspace system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,110,000,000 

for this program, an increase of $595,400,000 above the level provided for fiscal year 2006 and $607,000,000 above the budget estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, 

$2,662,100,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2008, 

and $447,900,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) 

is available until September 30, 2007. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts. 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B).—The 

Committee acknowledges that FAA has established the ADS–B 

technology as the basis of a future surveillance system. However, 

the Committee is concerned that under the newly established program office, too much focus is being placed on interim groundbased solutions instead of further accelerating the implementation 

of ADS–B technology. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 

for the funding of the ADS–B, of which $20,000,000 shall be directed to the Safe Flight 21 office for continuing research and development of air-to-air applications. The remaining amount is directed to the ADS–B program office. Provisions should be made for 

ensuring that this air-to-air research is translated into implementation across the national airspace system (NAS). 

Chicago O’Hare.—The Committee is concerned that the FAA has 

not acted on its recommendations to improve the overall efficiency 

of operations at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport that impacts the NAS. While long-term solutions to airport congestion at 

O’Hare continue to be developed, immediate operational improvements can be implemented to ease flight departures, arrivals and 

ground movement of aircraft particularly in times of inclement 

weather. Therefore, the FAA shall make the following improvements to operations at O’Hare International Airport: 1) expeditiously deploy ASDE–X radar system to improve ground handling 

of aircraft; and 2) design procedures that allow for RNAV departures and arrivals. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
21 

ENROUTE PROGRAMS

Airport Surface Detection System—Model X (ASDE–X).—The 

Committee provides funding and provides $73,600,000 for ASDE– 

X, for an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will enable FAA to expedite site implementation and 

commission ASDE–X systems earlier than currently planned. Deploying ASDE–X earlier at these sites will make it possible to realize safety and efficiency benefits sooner, including better controller 

situational awareness in all weather conditions and reduced risk of 

Category A and B runway incursions. 

Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Michigan.—The FAA is currently 

implementing multilateration technology to improve capacity in inclement weather conditions at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The 

Committee provides $8,000,000 to complete implementation at this 

airport. 

Integrated control and monitoring system.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for continued procurement and installation, 

including site preparation, of the integrated control and monitoring 

system (ICMS). FAA is currently using ICMS in Denver, Seattle, 

Newark, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix, and is installing the system in six additional locations shortly. This system 

would offer significant benefits to other operational evolution plan 

(OEP) airports as well as others with substantial landing aids and 

lighting systems. The Committee expects the agency to obligate 

these funds within six months of enactment, and to install such 

systems at airports with the highest need. 

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.—The Committee provides a total of $127,250,000 for this program, an increase of $3,250,000 over the budget request. Funds shall be distributed as follows: 

Kalamazoo, Michigan ............................................................................ $1,800,000 

West Palm Beach, Florida ..................................................................... 10,000,000 

Reno, Nevada ......................................................................................... 2,500,000 

Cleveland, Ohio ...................................................................................... 3,700,000 

Memphis, Tennessee .............................................................................. 22,400,000 

Jeffco, Colorado ...................................................................................... 4,200,000 

Houston, Texas ...................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Gulfport, Mississippi ............................................................................. 5,200,000 

Las Vegas, Nevada ................................................................................ 55,000,000 

Pensacola, Florida .................................................................................. 1,100,000 

Dayton, Ohio .......................................................................................... 2,200,000 

Saint Louis, Missouri ............................................................................ 1,250,000 

Palm Springs, California ....................................................................... 2,000,000 

FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) and GPS approaches.— 

The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2007 budget request of 

$122,400,000 for the wide area augmentation system includes 

$17,000,000 for the development of additional approaches and 

flight procedures at the nation’s non-part 139 certified airports. 

The Committee supports this effort, and has provided $132,400,000 

for WAAS, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request. 

Additional funds are provided to publish WAAS approaches at airports at non-Part 139 airports without an existing ILS approach. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
22 

Loran-C.—The Coast Guard has proposed terminating the 

LORAN C program in the President’s budget request because this 

system is no longer necessary for a secondary means of navigation. 

The Committee understands that a decision to terminate LORAN 

C is dependent upon agreement by the Department of Transportation, which has not yet occurred. The Committee assumes the 

continuation of LORAN C since this decision has not been fully coordinated within the Executive Branch. 

Terminal air modernization replacement (TAMR phase II).—The 

Committee provides a total of $36,450,000 for TAMR phase II. The 

$6,000,000 increase over the budget request will ensure full funding and accelerate the upgrade of nine high-risk sites, including the 

four Full Digital ARTS Display (FDAD) sites identified as critical 

to the NAS by the inspector general. These four sites are located 

in Chicago, Saint Louis, Denver, and Minneapolis. 

LANDING AND NAVIGATION AIDS

Instrument landing system establishment.—The Committee provides $4,900,000 for this program, an increase of $900,000 over the 

budget request. Funds shall be distributed as follows: 

Nationwide ............................................................................................. $4,000,000 

Completion of ILS at Northeastern Regional Airport, Edenton, 

North Carolina ................................................................................... 500,000 

Nationwide surveys ............................................................................... 400,000 

The Committee directs the FAA to complete surveys to determine 

if the Hazard Airport, Kentucky; Boise Airport, Idaho; Orlando 

International Airport, Florida; and the March Air Force Base, California (consistent with the existing cooperative agreement) meet 

the FAA criteria for establishment or upgrade of an ILS in terms 

of cost and feasibility. 

Approach lighting system improvement program.—The Committee provides $14,000,000 for this program, an increase of 

$2,000,000 over the budget request. Funds shall be distributed as 

follows: 

Nationwide ............................................................................................. $12,000,000 

Continuation of ALS at Lehigh Valley International Airport, Pennsylvania ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Continuation of MALSR at Arlington Municipal Airport ................... 1,000,000 

MISSION SUPPORT

NAS information systems.—The Committee provides $14,000,000 

to enable the agency to implement FAA requirements for logical access control to align with the common identification standards. 

This funding will allow the agency to meets its flight plan goal to 

defend the FAA NAS systems and networks against intrusion by 

unauthorized personnel. The Committee directs the FAA to provide 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a summary 

of how the FAA plans to use the funds. 

Center for advanced systems development.—The Committee provides $86,000,000 for the center for advanced systems development, 

an increase of $16,000,000 above the budget estimate, and equal to 

the fiscal year 2007 level. 

Frequency and spectrum engineering.—The Committee recommendation includes $7,000,000 for frequency and spectrum engineering, an increase of $2,500,000 over the budget request. The adVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
23 

ditional funds are for the continued implementation of the NAS interference, detection, location, and mitigation for the purpose of 

monitoring, detecting and locating radio and digital signals affecting the NAS, including such signals as Ultra Wide Band and GPS. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $447,900,000 for personnel and related expenses. This appropriation finances the installation and 

commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.—The bill continues to require the submission of a five year capital investment plan. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $136,620,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 130,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 134,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥2,620,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +4,000,000 

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized 

by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering 

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $134,000,000, and a decrease of 

$2,620,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $4,000,000 

above the President’s budget request. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2007 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

Program Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

estimate 

Committee recommended 

Improve Commercial Aviation Safety: ......................................................... $96,040,000 $88,162,000 $88,162,000

Fire research and safety .................................................................... 6,182,000 6,638,000 6,638,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems ............................................................. 5,741,000 4,048,000 4,048,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety ............................................... 5,881,000 2,843,000 5,843,000 

Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety ...................................... 3,407,000 3,848,000 3,848,000 

Aging aircraft ..................................................................................... 19,807,000 18,621,000 18,621,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention ............................................ 3,306,000 1,512,000 1,512,000 

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ............................................... 8,099,000 7,999,000 7,999,000 

Aviation safety risk analysis ............................................................. 4,883,000 5,292,000 5,292,000 

ATC/AF human factors ....................................................................... 9,558,000 9,654,000 9,654,000 

Aeromedical research ......................................................................... 8,800,000 6,962,000 6,962,000 

Weather research ............................................................................... 20,376,000 19,545,000 19,545,000

Unmanned aircraft system ................................................................ 1,200,000 

Improve Efficiency of the ATC System: ...................................................... 20,192,000 21,166,000 21,166,000 

Joint program and development office .............................................. 17,919,000 18,100,000 18,100,000 

Wake turbulence ................................................................................ 2,273,000 3,066,000 3,066,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
24 

Program Fiscal year 2006 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

estimate 

Committee recommended 

Reduce Environmental Impacts: ................................................................. 15,840,000 16,008,000 16,008,000 

Environment and energy .................................................................... 15,840,000 16,008,000 16,008,000 

Mission Support: ......................................................................................... 4,548,000 4,664,000 4,664,000 

System planning and resource mgmt ............................................... 1,189,000 1,234,000 1,234,000 

Technical laboratory facilities ........................................................... 3,359,000 3,430,000 3,430,000 

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety.—Within the funds provided for advanced material/structural safety, $3,000,000 is for the 

National Institute for Aviation Research to continue critical aviation research. 

Joint Planning and Development Office.—The bill includes 

$18,100,000, as requested, for FAA’s contribution to the multiagency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). This office 

involves the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Homeland 

Security, FAA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in developing a national plan for the transformation of air 

transportation. This plan is expected to establish a vision for the 

future air transportation system, set national aerospace goals, and 

provide a forum to engage industry and customer input. It is an advisory committee as defined in the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................................................... $3,399,000,000 ($3,514,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................................... 4,000,000,000 (2,750,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................................ 4,171,000,000 (3,700,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................................... +772,000,000 (+185,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .................................................................. +171,000,000 (+950,000,000) 

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$4,171,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-inaid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and 

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. This is 

$171,000,000 above the amount requested in the President’s budget 

and $772,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2006. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,700,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2007. This is $950,000,000 above the President’s budget 

request and $185,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
25 

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, funding of about $965,000,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports. 

ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, $74,971,000 is available for administration of the airports program 

by the FAA. In addition, $10,000,000 is for the airport cooperative 

research pilot program, and up to $17,870,000 for the airport technology research. These levels are consistent with the request level. 

Of the funds provided for airport technology research, $1,000,000 

is for alkali silica research. 

HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this bill, the 

Committee directs FAA to provide not less than the following funding levels, out of available resources, for the following projects in 

the corresponding amounts. The Committee agrees that state apportionment funds may be construed as discretionary funds for the 

purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum extent 

possible, the administrator should work to ensure that airport 

sponsors for these projects first use available entitlement funds to 

finance the projects. However, the FAA should not require sponsors 

to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary projects funded in 

the coming year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal 

year 2007 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that 

the specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or prejudice 

the application of a specific airport or geographic region to receive 

other AIP discretionary grants or mulityear letters of intent. 

Access Control System, Chattanooga Airport, TN .............................. $500,000 

Airport Expansion Master Plan, Council Bluffs, IA ........................... 1,000,000 

Airport, Taxiway Alpha, Albany, GA ................................................... 750,000 

Airside Improvements, Jacksonville Airport, FL ................................ 1,000,000 

Alamance County Regional Airport Runway Extension, NC ............. 1,000,000 

Albert Whitted Airport Ramp Design/Construction, FL ..................... 200,000 

Alliance Airport Runway Extension Project, TX ................................. 500,000 

Alliance Airport Runway Extension, Fort Worth, TX ......................... 2,000,000 

Altus/Quartz Mountain Regional Airport Runway Rehabilitation, 

OK ....................................................................................................... 150,000 

Anson County Airport Improvements, NC .......................................... 1,000,000 

Atlantic City International Airport Terminal Apron, NJ ................... 1,000,000 

Aurora Airport, IL, Various Improvements ......................................... 2,000,000 

Bemidji Regional Airport Development, MN ....................................... 500,000 

Bishop Airport, Cargo Apron Expansion, MI ...................................... 1,500,000 

Chattanooga Airport Runway Project, Feasibility Study, TN ............ 1,000,000 

Cherokee County Airport Authority Improvements, GA .................... 1,500,000 

Cherokee County North Carolina Airport Improvement .................... 2,000,000 

City of Detroit Airport Gateway Plan, MI ........................................... 1,500,000 

Concord Regional Airport Improvements and Land Acquisition, NC 1,500,000 

Cuyahoga County Airport Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation, OH .............................................................................................. 800,000 

Devils Lake Airport, ND ....................................................................... 800,000 

DuPage Airport, Various Improvements, IL ....................................... 1,500,000 

Gary/Chicago Airport, Gary, IN ........................................................... 1,000,000 

Greenwood County Airport Runway Extension Study, SC ................ 100,000 

Halifax Northampton Regional Airport, NC Runway ......................... 500,000 

Houma-Terrebonne Airport Taxiway and Runway, LA ...................... 750,000 

Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport Noise Project, TX ... 750,000 

Huron County Regional Airport Taxiway Construction, MI .............. 150,000 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Airport Study, IN ...................................... 750,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
26 

Jackson International Airport Improvements, MS ............................. 500,000 

Kalamazoo Battle Creek Airport Terminal, MI .................................. 750,000 

L.O. Simentstad Municipal Airport, Osceola, WI ............................... 1,500,000 

Lafayette Airport, Upgrades, LA .......................................................... 1,000,000 

Lawrence-Vincennes Municipal Airport Terminal Development, IL 750,000 

Lewis Airport Improvements and Land Acquisition, Romeoville, IL 1,000,000 

Lincoln Regional Airport Arrival/Departure Building, CA ................. 350,000 

Louisville Airport Authority Capacity Enhancements, KY ................ 2,000,000 

Mangham Regional Airport Expansion, Nacogdoches, TX ................. 200,000 

Manitowoc County Airport Improvements, Manitowoc, WI ............... 750,000 

McAllen-Miller Airport Mission Pilot Channel Reroute, TX .............. 700,000 

Middle Georgia Regional Airport, GA .................................................. 800,000 

Midfield Replacement Terminal, Springfield, MO .............................. 2,500,000 

Mobile Downtown Airport Apron Rehabilitation, Mobile, AL ............ 500,000 

Monroe Regional Airport, New Terminal, LA ..................................... 2,000,000 

New Bedford, MA Airport Safety Upgrades ........................................ 100,000 

New River Valley Airport, Runway Rehabilitation, VA ..................... 600,000 

NFIA Circulatory Road and Apron, Niagara County, NY .................. 1,000,000 

Parallel Runway, Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek, MI .......................... 750,000 

Parallel Runway, St. Lucie International Airport, FL ....................... 1,000,000 

Parallel Taxiway Construction Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT ............ 750,000 

Pellston Regional Airport Expansion, Pellston, MI ............................ 350,000 

Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport Noise Reduction, AZ .............................. 1,700,000 

Reconstruct West Apron, Harlingen Airport, TX ................................ 600,000 

Rehabilitate Runway, CVG, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Airport, 

Boone, KY ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Resurface Runway, Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA .............................................................................................. 1,500,000 

Rochester Airport Ramp and Safety Improvements, NC ................... 1,000,000 

Rockingham County Airport Improvements, NC ................................ 500,000 

Runway 13–31E Reconstruction at BNA, TN ..................................... 500,000 

Runway 7–25 Rehabilitation, NNWIA, VA ......................................... 1,000,000 

Runway Upgrade Phase I, Garfield County Regional Airport, CO ... 1,500,000 

Sacramento County Airport System Master Plan, CA ....................... 300,000 

Saline County Airport, AR .................................................................... 700,000 

San Jose International Airport Guard Lights, CA .............................. 400,000 

Sawyer County Airport, WI .................................................................. 1,500,000 

Sheboygan County Memorial Airport Improvements, Sheboygan, 

WI ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

Somerset Airport Land Acquisition for Obstruction Removal, KY .... 1,000,000 

St. Cloud Airport Improvements, MN .................................................. 150,000 

St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport Terminal Renovation, FL ............................................................................................... 500,000 

Stanly County Airport Improvements, NC .......................................... 1,000,000 

Statesville Airport Improvement Project, NC ..................................... 750,000 

Subsurface Wetland Glycol Treatment, Buffalo, NY .......................... 1,250,000 

Taylor County Airport, Medford, WI .................................................... 2,000,000 

Terminal Improvements Roberts Field—Redmond, OR ..................... 950,000 

Terminal Improvements, Augusta Regional Airport, GA ................... 2,000,000 

Texarkana Regional Airport Passenger Terminal, TX ....................... 750,000 

Toledo Express Airport, Air Cargo Operations, OH ........................... 750,000 

Turner County Airport Revitalization, GA .......................................... 250,000 

Tuscaloosa Regional Airport Master Plan Update, AL ....................... 200,000 

Twin County Airport, Airport Safety Area, Carroll County, VA ....... 200,000 

Williams Gateway Airport Taxiway Improvements, AZ ..................... 2,000,000 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.—Consistent 

with the provisions of Public Law 106–181 and the fiscal year 2004 

through 2006 Appropriations Acts, the bill allows funds under this 

limitation to be used for airports to procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices. 

Small community air service development program.—The bill 

specifies that $20,000,000 of the total amount limited is available 

to continue the small community air service development program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
27 

Administration and research programs.—The bill provides that, 

within the overall obligation limitation, $74,971,000 is available for 

administration of the airports program by the FAA. The Committee 

also provides $10,000,000 is for the airport cooperative research 

pilot program, and up to $17,870,000 for the airport technology research. 

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... ¥$1,032,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ........................................... ¥1,582,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ....................................................... ¥25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................... ¥1,007,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .................................... ¥1,557,000,000 

The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of contract 

authorization of $25,000,000 from contract authority in fiscal year 

2006 that ‘‘popped-up’’ above the obligation limitation available for 

that fiscal year due to the 1 percent across the board cut. Therefore, this rescission has no effect on any grants-in-aid program. The 

proposed rescission is a result of section 107 of AIR–21 (P.L. 106– 

181). This section specified that, in the event appropriations for the 

facilities and equipment program were less than authorized in a 

given fiscal year, additional contract authorization would automatically be made available for the grants-in-aid for airports program. 

The Committee understands that the legislative committees intended to provide flexibility in meeting the funding guarantees, by 

allowing the Appropriations Committees to meet the guarantee by 

providing a single, combined total of funding for the F&E and 

grants-in-aid programs rather than hitting the precise authorized 

amounts for each as specified in the authorization Act. Because the 

Appropriations Committees are not provided an allocation of budget authority for the grants-in-aid program, section 107 provided 

automatic budget authority for this purpose. The Committee continues to disagree with the Congressional Budget Offices’ scoring of 

this provision. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring FAA to 

accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated equipment 

procured by airports, subject to certain criteria. 

Section 111. The Committee retains, with modification, a provision limiting the number of technical workyears at the Center for 

Advanced Aviation Systems Development. The modification raises 

the limitation from 375 in fiscal year 2006 to 380 in fiscal year 

2007. 

Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without 

cost’’ building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or 

space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in the case of certain 

specified exceptions. 

Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
28 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting funds 

to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 

Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

current terms and conditions of FAA’s aviation insurance program, 

commonly known as the ‘‘war risk insurance’’ program, for one additional year, from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007. Although the underlying program is authorized until March 2008, 

certain provisions including premium price caps were set to expire 

at the end of this calendar year. The Committee recommendation 

preserves the status quo under this program, a savings of 

$125,000,000 from the budget estimate. Savings accrue because the 

bill’s provisions result in additional revenue from insurance premiums, which were assumed to be zero in the budget estimate for 

fiscal year 2007. 

Section 116. The Committee retains a provision that prohibits 

funds for engineering work related to an additional runway at 

Louis Armstrong International Airport in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial 

assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 of the United 

States Code and other supporting legislation provide authority for 

the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in Appropriations Acts. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), enacted August 10, 2005, 

provides for increased transportation infrastructure investment, 

strengthens transportation safety and environmental programs, 

and continues core research activities. SAFETEA–LU also amended 

the Budget Enforcement Act to continue two discretionary spending 

categories, one of which is the highway category. This category is 

comprised of all federal-aid highways funding, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s motor carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) highway 

safety grants funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development funding. If appropriations action forces highway obligations to exceed this level, the resulting difference in outlays is 

charged to the discretionary spending category. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2007 if receipts into the highway account of the 

highway trust fund exceed levels specified in SAFETEA–LU, automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and 

outlays for the highway category accordingly. Additional resources 

provided by this automatic spending mechanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA). 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROGRAM

SAFETEA–LU caps the highway category obligations at $39,460,710,516 in fiscal year 2007 and federal-aid highway obligations at $38,244,210,516. In addition, the provisions of SAFETEA– 

LU require an increase of $842,254,167 in fiscal year 2007 in fedVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
29 

eral-aid highway funding due to RABA. This combined total highway funding level of $39,086,464,683 represents almost a 10% increase over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $35,550,788,034. 

The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the levels 

guaranteed by SAFETEA–LU, as adjusted for RABA. The following 

table summarizes the program levels within the FHWA for fiscal 

year 2006 enacted, the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the 

Committee’s recommendation: 

Program Fiscal year 2006 enacted 

Fiscal year 2007 

request 

Recomended in the bill 

Federal-aid highways ................................................................ $35,550,788,034 1 $38,244,210,516 $38,244,210,516 

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) ............................... – – – 842,254,167 842,254,167 

Subtotal ....................................................................... 35,550,788,034 39,086,464,683 39,086,464,683 

Exempt contract authority ........................................................ 739,000,000 739,000,000 739,000,000 

Subtotal ....................................................................... 36,289,778,034 39,825,464,683 39,825,464,683 

Emergency relief program—P.L. 109–148 (GF) ....................... 2,750,000,000 – – – – – – 

Appalachian development highway system (GF) ...................... 19,800,000 – – – – – – 

Rescission of contract authority ............................................... ¥3,142,999,000 – – – ¥2,164,453,027 

Total ............................................................................. 35,916,589,034 39,825,464,683 37,661,011,656 

1 Reflects transfer of funds to NHTSA. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... ($360,991,620) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... (372,504,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (372,504,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ..................................................... (+11,512,380) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... (– – –) 

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of 

the FHWA required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program, highway-related research, and most other federal 

highway programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $372,504,000, consistent with the budget request and $11,512,380 above the fiscal 

year 2006 level. This funding level is sufficient to fund 2,430 full 

time equivalent staff years (FTE). 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee is disappointed by the poor quality of the FHWA’s budget submission for 

fiscal year 2007, particularly with the lack of information provided 

for the agency’s research and technology programs. For example, 

the budget submission fails to include basic descriptive budgetary 

data, such as tables showing funding amounts for each research 

program, as well as justifications and descriptions for these programs. The budget submission also fails to identify changes in legislative language being requested by the agency. The Committee 

cannot evaluate the merit of bill language if the language is not included; a short description with little to no information is unacceptable. The Committee understands that the FHWA recently hired a 

new budget officer and is optimistic that this new hire will bring 

about positive changes. The Committee expects to see improved 

budget justifications next year and, to this end, directs the FHWA 

to submit its fiscal year 2008 Congressional justification materials 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
30 

at the same level of detail provided in the fiscal year 2003 Congressional justifications. Furthermore, the Committee directs the 

FHWA to include funding levels for the prior year, current year, 

and budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program elements. The budget submission must also include detailed 

justification for requested FTE and funding increases, by program, 

activity, and program element, as well as legislative language for 

all proposed programs and provisions. 

Unobligated balances in miscellaneous accounts.—The Committee 

is concerned that the FHWA is doing little to identify unneeded 

balances of unobligated highway project funds. These no-year 

funds, which have been designated for specific purposes and geographic locations, cannot be used for another project without legislative action. As a result, these funds remain unobligated indefinitely. In a 2004 report, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) noted that the FHWA was not routinely reviewing these unobligated project funds and identified $16,407,909 that could be rescinded. In a subsequent May 2006 report, GAO identified an additional $12,177,194 for rescission. The Committee is concerned that 

the FHWA is not routinely reviewing projects with unneeded balances and is instead waiting for outside parties to initiate reviews. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the FHWA to submit a report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 

1, 2007, detailing how the agency is addressing GAO’s recommendations. The report should describe the process for reviewing unobligated project funds, as well as notifying Congress of 

those projects where legislative action is needed. 

In addition, the Committee understands that section 1603 of 

SAFETEA–LU addresses the use of excess funds and funds for inactive projects that were allocated before fiscal year 1991. The 

Committee directs the FHWA to include with the fiscal year 2008 

budget submission a description of any action taken under that section in fiscal year 2006. 

George Washington Memorial Parkway feasibility study.—The 

Committee directs the FHWA to work with the National Park Service to determine the feasibility of extending a third southbound 

lane of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from the Key 

Bridge to the Roosevelt Memorial Bridge in Arlington, Virginia. 

The FHWA shall assist the National Park Service in the preparation of a report which must be submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, not later than six months after the 

date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility of such an extension. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... ($425,502,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... (429,800,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (429,800,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ..................................................... (+4,298,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... (– – –) 

This limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

and technology contract programs of the FHWA. It includes a number of contract programs including surface transportation research, 

training and education, university transportation research, and intelligent transportation systems research. Funding for the Bureau 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
31 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is also included within this limitation even though BTS is organizationally placed within the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). Additional information regarding BTS is included in the RITA section 

of this report. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for transportation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2007 for the following transportation research programs: 

Surface transportation research ........................................................ $196,400,000 

Training and education ...................................................................... 26,700,000 

Bureau of transportation statistics ................................................... 27,000,000 

University transportation research ................................................... 69,700,000 

Intelligent transportation systems research .................................... 110,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 429,800,000 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................................... $36,032,343,903 ($35,550,788,034) 1

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................... 39,086,000,000 (39,086,464,683) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................ 39,086,464,683 (39,086,464,683) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .............................................................. +3,054,120,780 (+3,535,676,649) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................... +464,683 (– – –) 1 Reflects transfer of funds to NHTSA. 

The federal-aid highways (FAH) program is designed to aid in 

the development, operations and management of an intermodal 

transportation system that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete 

in the global economy, and moves people and goods safely. 

All programs included within FAH are financed from the highway trust fund and most are distributed via apportionments and 

allocations to states. The FAH program is funded by contract authority in SAFETEA–LU and liquidating cash appropriations are 

subsequently provided to fund outlays resulting from obligations 

incurred under contract authority. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$39,086,464,683. This is the amount required to pay the outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels provided in 

this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2007 federal-aid highways obligations to $39,086,464,683, consistent with the 

SAFETEA–LU highway funding guarantees as adjusted for RABA. 

Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be calculated 

is available to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
32 

(FMCSA) for the motor carrier safety grant program and bill language is included to transfer this funding to FMCSA. 

The Committee has also included bill language, as was enacted 

last year, that allows the secretary to charge and collect fees from 

the applicant for a direct loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to 

cover the cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of the department. These fees are not subject to any obligation 

limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for the 

transportation infrastructure finance and innovation program 

under section 608 of title 23, United States Code. 

Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of 

obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated obligations by program within the 

$39,086,464,683 provided by this Act and additional resources 

made available by permanent law: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Programs FY 2005 limitation FY 2006 limitation FY 2007 est. 

limitation 

Subject to limitation: 

Surface Transportation Program ...................................... $5,475,931 $5,139,465 6,143,138 

National Highway System ................................................ 4,678,055 4,879,210 4,853,549 

Interstate Maintenance .................................................... 3,829,247 3,994,609 4,776,773 

Bridge Program ................................................................ 3,271,421 3,412,935 4,081,561 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ...... 1,336,163 1,393,288 1,665,247 

Highway Safety Improvement Program ............................ – – – 866,641 1,014,618 

Equity Bonus .................................................................... 6,828,645 5,858,197 7,359,857 

Surface Transportation Research Program ...................... 152,453 169,159 188,811 

University Transportation Research, Training and 

Education ..................................................................... 52,086 83,029 92,675 

ITS Standards, Research and Development .................... 85,386 94,743 105,750 

ITS Deployment ................................................................ 94,701 – – – – – – 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ................................ 26,263 26,730 27,280 

Federal Lands Highways .................................................. 630,538 701,440 854,650 

High Priority Projects ....................................................... 2,536,272 2,554,960 2,851,782 

Projects of National and Regional Significance ............. 152,105 306,451 427,565 

National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program .. 166,554 335,562 468,183 

Transportation Improvements .......................................... 218,473 440,165 614,126 

Appalachian Development Highway System .................... 385,374 395,296 446,970 

Transportation, Community, and System Preservation 

Program ....................................................................... 21,375 52,755 358,883 

Other Programs ................................................................ 4,032,584 4,380,083 2,265,255 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

(TIFIA) .......................................................................... 104,310 105,079 117,286 

Administration .................................................................. 341,485 360,992 372,504 

Total Subject to Obligation Limitation ................... 34,419,420 35,550,788 39,086,465 

Emergency Relief Program ........................................................ 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Equity Bonus ............................................................................. 639,000 639,000 639,000 

Total Exempt Programs .................................................... 739,000 739,000 739,000 

Emergency Relief Supplemental ............................................... 1,937,072 2,750,000 1 – – – 

Grand Total, Federal-Aid Highways (Direct) .. 37,095,492 39,039,788 39,825,465 

1 General Fund Appropriation (P.L. 109–148). 

The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
33 

ESTIMATED FY 2007 OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State Formula Obligation 

Limitation 

Formula Obligation 

Limitation RABA 

Equity 

Bonus 

Appalachian Development Highways Total 

Alabama .................................. $548,200 $6,932 $49,514 $27,803 $632,448 

Alaska ...................................... 234,629 4,058 44,953 0 283,640 

Arizona ..................................... 531,148 9,833 54,387 0 595,368 

Arkansas .................................. 368,026 4,539 28,040 0 400,605 

California ................................. 2,778,209 50,276 145,364 0 2,973,850 

Colorado .................................. 386,101 7,192 18,226 0 411,519 

Connecticut ............................. 390,861 4,716 34,746 0 430,324 

Delaware .................................. 122,165 1,507 3,464 0 127,136 

District of Columbia ................ 129,766 1,442 0 0 131,208 

Florida ..................................... 1,345,091 26,230 171,589 0 1,542,910 

Georgia .................................... 971,216 18,912 113,040 17,040 1,120,208 

Hawaii ..................................... 130,372 1,608 4,694 0 136,674 

Idaho ....................................... 210,115 2,636 21,033 0 233,784 

Illinois ...................................... 1,013,190 19,098 65,256 0 1,097,544 

Indiana .................................... 703,075 13,379 76,653 0 793,106 

Iowa ......................................... 339,393 6,186 3,012 0 348,591 

Kansas ..................................... 326,808 3,639 1,201 0 331,648 

Kentucky .................................. 445,166 6,027 29,265 65,207 545,665 

Louisiana ................................. 474,012 5,526 18,002 0 497,540 

Maine ....................................... 147,155 1,820 0 0 148,975 

Maryland .................................. 464,625 8,769 24,454 6,099 503,947 

Massachusetts ........................ 514,054 5,834 15,592 0 535,479 

Michigan .................................. 910,643 16,515 59,244 0 986,401 

Minnesota ................................ 494,480 9,441 32,938 0 536,858 

Mississippi .............................. 351,018 5,157 17,376 5,042 378,593 

Missouri ................................... 699,480 8,215 39,809 0 747,505 

Montana .................................. 270,304 3,383 28,177 0 301,863 

Nebraska ................................. 229,456 2,647 3,000 0 235,103 

Nevada .................................... 195,480 3,948 10,750 0 210,178 

New Hampshire ....................... 139,154 1,607 6,610 0 147,371 

New Jersy ................................. 767,970 14,227 52,968 0 835,165 

New Mexico .............................. 282,590 3,365 18,444 0 304,399 

New York ................................. 1,366,034 16,028 58,046 21,467 1,461,574 

North Carolina ......................... 779,871 15,308 75,757 36,363 907,299 

North Dakota ........................... 192,539 2,233 4,198 0 198,970 

Ohio ......................................... 1,047,877 19,884 81,721 19,517 1,169,000 

Oklahoma ................................ 465,604 8,380 19,266 0 493,250 

Oregon ..................................... 354,111 4,219 6,124 0 364,454 

Pennsylvania ........................... 1,263,460 15,672 75,171 98,347 1,452,651 

Rhode Island ........................... 155,474 1,883 0 0 157,356 

South Carolina ........................ 456,633 8,686 39,627 2,762 507,707 

South Dakota ........................... 200,028 2,483 10,343 0 212,854 

Tennessee ................................ 605,013 12,060 47,765 33,257 698,095 

Texas ....................................... 2,330,764 43,408 228,337 0 2,602,509 

Utah ......................................... 214,770 2,682 9,396 0 226,848 

Vermont ................................... 134,835 1,617 0 0 136,452 

Virginia .................................... 743,028 14,357 64,750 31,796 853,930 

Washington .............................. 530,117 9,319 5,358 0 544,794 

West Virginia ........................... 241,452 3,848 15,979 82,269 343,548 

Wisconsin ................................ 550,530 6,782 57,813 0 615,125 

Wyoming .................................. 206,506 2,378 8,552 0 217,436 

Subtotal .......................... 28,752,597 469,890 2,000,000 446,970 31,669,457 

High Priority Projects .............. 2,821,046 30,736 0 0 2,851,782 

Allocated Programs ................. 4,223,597 341,629 0 0 4,565,226 

Total Limitation ..... 35,797,241 842,254 2,000,000 446,970 39,086,465 

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership 

and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of 

roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
34 

federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, 

the terms of which vary with the type of road. 

There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United 

States and approximately 594,000 bridges. The federal government 

provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and 

preservation of about 971,000 miles (24 percent) of these roads, 

which represents the National Highway System plus key feeder 

and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 

85 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, federal-aid highways funds are made 

available through the following major programs: 

Surface transportation program (STP).—STP is a flexible program that may be used by states and localities for projects on any 

federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and state sub-allocations are provided. The federal 

share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 

adjustment, with a four-year availability period. 

National highway system (NHS).—The NHS program provides 

funding for a designated National Highway System consisting of 

roads that are of primary federal interest. The NHS consists of the 

current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways 

and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department’s designated Strategic Highway Network, and 

roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was enacted in 1995 and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) added to 

the system the highways and connections to transportation facilities identified in the May 24, 1996 report to Congress. The federal 

share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the 

sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of four-years. 

Interstate maintenance (IM) program.—The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the 

Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other 

than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The federal share for 

the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for four years. 

Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary program in fiscal year 2007 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 

Alameda County I–580 HOV Lane, CA ............................................... $1,000,000 

Cactus Avenue, NV ................................................................................ 500,000 

Depression of Belt Line Road Below Grade at I–35, TX .................... 750,000 

I–10—Grove Avenue, Ontario, CA ....................................................... 750,000 

I–10 Improvement Project, Western Maricopa County, AZ ............... 750,000 

I–10 Ramon Road/Bob Hope Interchange, CA .................................... 500,000 

I–15 Bluff Interchange, St. George, UT ............................................... 1,000,000 

I–15, Mile Post 4 Interchange, Bloomington, UT ............................... 500,000 

I–15/Base Line Road Interchange, Rancho Cucamonga, CA .............. 750,000 

I–20 in Ouachita Parish, LA ................................................................. 500,000 

I–20 Transportation Corridor Program, Lincoln Parish, LA .............. 1,000,000 

I–205 and MacArthur Interchange Improvement, Tracy, CA ............ 1,250,000 

I–225 at Colfax (US40) and 17th Avenue, Aurora, CO ...................... 500,000 

I–235 Reconstruction in Des Moines, IA ............................................. 1,250,000 

I–235 Stormwater Management, Des Moines, IA ............................... 500,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
35 

I–25 and Lincoln Avenue Interchange, Douglas County CO ............. 250,000 

I–25, through Northeastern Colorado, from Highway 52 to Highway 14, CO ......................................................................................... 500,000 

I–25/SH 16 Interchange, Colorado Springs, CO .................................. 500,000 

I–265 Rehl Road Interchange Planning and Development, KY ......... 400,000 

I–29/52nd Avenue South Interchange Reconstruction, ND ................ 500,000 

I–35 Bridge Repair at Midway Road, MN ........................................... 500,000 

I–35 Snake River Bridge, MN .............................................................. 500,000 

I–40 and Coors Interchange, NM ......................................................... 1,750,000 

I–40 Reconstruction from I–240 East to Choctaw Road, Oklahoma 

City, OK .............................................................................................. 1,100,000 

I–40 Rehabilitation and Improvements, NC ....................................... 500,000 

I–430/630 Interchange Improvements, Little, Rock, AR .................... 300,000 

I–471 Interchange KY8, Campbell, KY ................................................ 1,600,000 

I–5 and Ortega Highway (SR–74) Interchange Reconstruction, San 

Juan Capistrano, CA ......................................................................... 750,000 

I–5 Trade Corridor, OR ......................................................................... 500,000 

I–5/Cosumnes River Boulevard Extension, CA ................................... 1,000,000 

I–5/Louise Avenue Interchange Improvements, CA ........................... 400,000 

I–5/North Macadam Freeway Ramp Improvements OR .................... 1,000,000 

I–540 Interchange Improvements, Northwest AR .............................. 500,000 

I–540 Western Wake Freeway, NC ...................................................... 600,000 

I–55 at Weber Road, St. Louis County, MO ........................................ 400,000 

I–65/222 Interchange in Cullman County, AL .................................... 1,500,000 

I–66 Northern Bypass of Somerset, KY ............................................... 1,000,000 

I–66 Pike County, KY ............................................................................ 500,000 

I–66 Somerset to London, KY ............................................................... 1,500,000 

I–69, TN .................................................................................................. 750,000 

I–70 at SH 340, CO ............................................................................... 500,000 

I–70 West at Empire Junction in Clear Creek County, CO ............... 500,000 

I–73 Construction, NC Border to I–95, SC .......................................... 600,000 

I–75 Corridor between Exits 38 and 41, KY ....................................... 500,000 

I–75/Griffin Road Interchange, FL ....................................................... 500,000 

I–76 Corridor from Fort Morgan to the Nebraska State Line, CO 500,000 

I–77 Interchange, Cornelius, NC .......................................................... 500,000 

I–84, US–93 Interchange, State 2, ID .................................................. 500,000 

I–85 New Interchange, Troup County, GA .......................................... 250,000 

I–93 P&D Construction, Andover, Tewksbury, and Wilmington, MA 500,000 

I–95 and SC–327 Interchange Improvement Project, SC ................... 2,000,000 

I–95/I–495 New Greenbelt Metro Station Access Interchange, MD 1,200,000 

I–95/Lewistown road, Hanover, VA ...................................................... 1,650,000 

Improvements to I–35 Access and Local roads, from the Red River 

North 7 miles, Love County, OK ...................................................... 500,000 

Intersection of US50 and I–275, Dearborn County, IN ...................... 1,500,000 

Intersection, I–49 and Highway 190, St. Landry Parish, LA ............ 500,000 

Latson Road and I–96 Interchange, Brighton, MI .............................. 500,000 

Lee County I–20 Frontage road, US–15 to SC–341, SC ..................... 1,000,000 

Mesa del Sol I–25 Interchange, NM ..................................................... 1,000,000 

Noise Wall between I–285 and Lantern Ridge, GA ............................ 500,000 

North Ontario Interchange, OR ............................................................ 500,000 

Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV ...................................... 500,000 

Stapleton I–70 Interchange, Denver, CO ............................................. 500,000 

TH 169 and I–494 Interchange, MN .................................................... 500,000 

Widen I–66 Westbound Inside the Capital Beltway, VA ................... 2,000,000 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.—The bridge program enables states to improve the condition of their bridges 

through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 

maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors 

and as local. Bridge program funds have a four-year period of availability with a federal share for all projects, except those on the 

Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the Interstate System, the federal share 

is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
36 

There is a set-aside of $100,000,000 from the fiscal year 2007 

funding for the bridge program that is designated for specific 

projects listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program 

(CMAQ).—The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 

projects and programs to help meet and maintain national ambient 

air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. A minimum 1/2 percent of the apportionment is guaranteed 

to each state. 

Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).—The new HSIP 

(previously funded by a set-aside from STP) was established as a 

core program beginning in 2006. The program, which features strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional resources 

and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities 

and injuries on all public roads. 

Appalachian development highway system.—This program makes 

funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, funding is authorized at $470,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; is available until expended; 

and is distributed among the 13 eligible states based on the latest 

available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission. 

Equity bonus program.—The equity bonus (replaces TEA–21’s 

minimum guarantee) provides additional funds to states to ensure 

that each state’s total funding from apportioned programs and for 

High Priority Projects meets certain equity considerations. Each 

state is guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund, and 

a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA–21. Certain states will maintain the 

share of total apportionments they each received during TEA–21. 

An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will 

be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. 

Emergency relief (ER).—The ER program provides funds for the 

repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways and bridges and 

federally-owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The 

ER program supplements the commitment of resources by states, 

their political subdivisions, or federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

Federal lands.—This category funds improvement for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads; and refuge roads. The federal lands highways program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that provide access to 

or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. 

Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 2007 

shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 

14th Street Bridge/GW Parkway Improvements, VA ......................... $2,000,000 

Baltimore/Washington Parkway Gateway, Baltimore, MD ................ 700,000 

Bear River Access Road, Brigham City, UT ........................................ 1,250,000 

Boulder City Bypass, NV ...................................................................... 1,000,000 

Chassahowitzka Refuge Access Road Improvement, FL .................... 400,000 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Recreation Trail, DE ..................... 1,700,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
37 

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID ............................................... 2,000,000 

Doyle Drive Replacement, Golden Gate Bridge Access, CA ............... 4,000,000 

FH–24, Banks to Lowman, ID .............................................................. 1,700,000 

Forest Service Highway #2 in Winston County, AL ........................... 1,200,000 

Fort Baker Park Access and Transportation Improvements, CA ...... 300,000 

Fort George Island Access Road, FL .................................................... 2,000,000 

Going-to-the-Sun Road, Glacier National Park, MT ........................... 3,000,000 

Golden Gate NRA Park Access and Trails, CA ................................... 1,000,000 

Hatch Trading Post Road, San Juan County, UT ............................... 590,000 

Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ ........................................................... 2,130,000 

Lake Mead Highway Improvements, NV ............................................. 1,000,000 

Lowell Riverwalk Phase II Construction, Lowell, MA ........................ 750,000 

MD 4 Suitland Parkway Interchange, MD .......................................... 4,500,000 

Natchez Trails Project, Natchez, MS ................................................... 650,000 

National Park Service, Sandy Hook Multi-Use Path, NJ .................. 450,000 

Navajo Route 35, San Juan County, UT .............................................. 1,000,000 

Needles Highway, San Bernardino County, CA .................................. 1,000,000 

Paving of US 212 East of Eagle Butte, SD .......................................... 500,000 

Paving of Young Road (FS 512), AZ ..................................................... 1,250,000 

Pyramid Highway Corridor in Sparks and Reno, NV ........................ 500,000 

Recreational Park Road, KY ................................................................. 180,000 

Route 1 and 619 Traffic Circle, Prince William County, VA ............. 1,700,000 

SH 14 between Ault and Sterling, Weld County, CO ......................... 500,000 

Sharpes Ferry Bridge Replacement in Marion County, FL ............... 1,900,000 

State Route 160 Expansion and Safety, NV ........................................ 500,000 

Stones River National Battlefield Tour Route, TN ............................. 2,000,000 

Three Affiliated Tribes Wells Road, ND .............................................. 500,000 

Trail Ridge Road, US 34 Resurfacing, CO ........................................... 1,000,000 

US 34, Big Thompson Canyon between Loveland and Estes Park, 

Larimer County, CO .......................................................................... 500,000 

US 491 in Montezuma County, CO ...................................................... 750,000 

US 50–A, Fernley to Fallon, NV ........................................................... 500,000 

US 93 Interim Improvements, NV ....................................................... 500,000 

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge Roads, NE .................................. 500,000 

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be 

derived from the FHWA’s public lands highways discretionary program and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s 

regions. 

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—SAFETEA–LU reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009 be set aside for marine highway systems 

that are part of the National Highway System for use by the states 

of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2007, 

SAFETEA–LU provides $60,000,000 for the ferry boat program. 

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 

program in fiscal year 2007 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 

Camden Town Center Ferry Terminal Building, NJ .......................... $750,000 

Ferry Boat Service, Berkeley/Albany, CA ............................................ 750,000 

Ferry Infrastructure Improvement, Hokes Bluff, AL ......................... 600,000 

Ferry System Dock Repairs, Sapelo Island, GA .................................. 600,000 

Fort Gates and Drayton Terminals, Putnam County, FL .................. 1,080,000 

Glen Cove Ferry Terminal, NY ............................................................ 2,000,000 

Landing Craft for Mackinac Island State Park, MI ........................... 250,000 

Mayport Ferry, Jacksonville, FL .......................................................... 1,144,000 

Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Redevelopment, WA ......................... 650,000 

Oak Harbor Municipal Pier Project, WA ............................................. 1,000,000 

Port Aransas Ferryboat Expansion, TX ............................................... 750,000 

Provincetown Intermodal Center/Marine Gateway, MA .................... 850,000 

Staten Island Barberi Class Ferry Replacement, NY ......................... 1,100,000 

Staten Island Fast Ferry Purchase, NY .............................................. 800,000 

Staten Island Ferry Rack Reconstruction, NY .................................... 1,100,000 

Vallejo Baylink Ferry Intermodal Facility, CA ................................... 1,750,000 

Vashon Island Passenger Only Ferry, WA .......................................... 500,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
38 

Voyae Data Recorders for Staten Island Ferry, NY ........................... 1,000,000 

Water-Based Transport, Medord, MA .................................................. 750,000 

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways 

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. In fiscal year 2007, 

SAFETEA–LU provides $35,000,000 for this program. 

Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP) program.—SAFETEA–LU continues the TCSP program to provide 

grants to states and local governments for planning, developing, 

and implementing strategies to integrate transportation, community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants 

may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; 

reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce 

the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and 

provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2007 shall 

be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 

1 Toll Road Project, LA ......................................................................... $1,500,000 

12th and 14th Avenue Road Reconstruction, Madawaska, ME ......... 150,000 

19th Street SW Grade Separation, Mason City, IA ............................ 1,000,000 

315 Research Corridor Transportation Improvements, OH ............... 500,000 

36th Street Extension Project, San Antonio, TX ................................. 200,000 

40th Street Revitalization Project, FL ................................................. 500,000 

45th Street Improvements in Munster, IN .......................................... 1,200,000 

4-County Transportation Needs Study, Kane County, IL .................. 1,000,000 

4th Street Underpass, Monroe, LA ...................................................... 500,000 

63rd Street Downtown Bridge Replacement, Raytown, MO .............. 500,00 

Agoura Road Widening, CA .................................................................. 400,000 

Agri-Center Interchange, Tulare, CA ................................................... 250,000 

Airport Boulevard Highway 101 Interchange, Monterery, CA .......... 250,000 

Airport Industrial Drive in Gadsden, AL ............................................ 400,000 

Alabama Avenue Safety Improvments, Stark County, OH ................ 1,000,000 

Alameda Corridor-East, San Gabriel Valley, CA ................................ 1,500,000 

Almaden Expressway Pedestrian Improvement Project, CA ............. 300,000 

Alpine Traffic Relief Route Study, TX ................................................. 250,000 

Ambassador Bridge/Port of Detroit Multimodal Transportation Initiative, MI ........................................................................................... 500,000 

Antelope Valley Transportation Improvements, NE .......................... 1,000,000 

Atlantic Boulevard Bridge Replacement, Pompano Beach, FL .......... 2,000,000 

Avenue P Rancho Vista Boulevard Improvements, Palmdale, CA .... 500,000 

Battlefield Parkway Loudon County, VA ............................................ 900,000 

Bay Ridge Trail Bike and Pedestrian Path, CA .................................. 300,000 

Bay Road Stormwater Improvements East Palo Alto, CA ................. 200,000 

Beaver Street Reconstruction Project, CT ........................................... 100,000 

Belleview Bypass and Baseline Road Project, FL ............................... 250,000 

Belleville Road and Ecorse Road Intersection, MI .............................. 500,000 

Bensalem Township Delaware Valley Regional Plan, PA .................. 1,000,000 

Big 4 Bridge Access Project, Jeffersonville, IN ................................... 500,000 

Blossom Hill/Monterey Grade Crossing, CA ........................................ 200,000 

Boot Road Extension, Dowingtown, PA ............................................... 3,500,000 

Bosque Bike Trails, NM ........................................................................ 300,000 

Boston Street Traffic Improvement Study, Baltimore, MD ............... 400,000 

Bouldercrest Road Widening, Dekalb County, GA ............................. 300,000 

Bowery Street Streetscape and Repair, Akron, OH ............................ 300,000 

Brannon Stand Road Bridge Replacement, AL ................................... 500,000 

Brays Bayou Hike and Bike Trail, Houston, TX ................................. 150,000 

Brazos Valley Transportation Management Center, TX .................... 600,000 

Bremerton Pedestrian-BTC Tunnel Project, WA ................................ 5,000,000 

Bridge to Dennings Point in Beacon, NY ............................................ 500,000 

Bridgeview Bridge Bike Path, MI ........................................................ 500,000 

Briggs-DeLaine-Pearson Connector, SC .............................................. 1,500,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
39 

Bristol Street Widening, Orange County, CA ..................................... 350,000 

BRPC-Western Scenic Byway Tourism Program, MA ........................ 500,000 

Brush College Road and William Street, Decatur, IL ........................ 100,000 

Bruton Smith Parkway, Henry County, GA ........................................ 250,000 

Buffalo Bolt Office Park Access Road, NY ........................................... 930,000 

Buffalo Road, Town of Orangeville, Wyoming County, NY ................ 350,000 

Butterfield Road Grade Separation, Lake County, IL ........................ 200,000 

Campus Drive West, City of Hancock, MI ........................................... 200,000 

Campus Parkway, Merced, CA ............................................................. 400,000 

CARTA Intelligent Transportation System, Chattanooga, TN .......... 2,000,000 

Cascade Deck Northbound Connection, Akron, OH ........................... 500,000 

C–B–S Corridor, Toledo, OH ................................................................. 500,000 

Cedar Bluff, AL ...................................................................................... 200,000 

Center Street Bridge and Riverwalk, Des Moines, IA ........................ 500,000 

Central Avenue/49th Street Bridge, Columbia Heights, MN ............. 1,200,000 

Central City, Trinity River Vision, Fort Worth, TX ........................... 2,000,000 

Central Expressway Auxiliary Lanes, Santa Clara County, CA ....... 300,000 

Central Ohio Innovation Center, OH ................................................... 1,000,000 

Chambers County, AL ........................................................................... 125,000 

Chattahoochee Hill Country and Greenway Trails, GA ..................... 200,000 

Chicago Park District, DuSable Park, IL ............................................ 500,000 

Chicago Transit Authority Purple Line Viaducts, IL ......................... 300,000 

Chicora Bridge Safety Improvements, PA ........................................... 500,000 

Chinatown Streetscape Los Angeles, CA ............................................. 200,000 

Cidra-Cayey Connector, Puerto Rico .................................................... 500,000 

City of Lafayette, AL ............................................................................. 50,000 

City of Rio Vista Highway 12 Safety Project, CA ............................... 250,000 

City of Tarrant Downtown Revitalization, AL .................................... 300,000 

City of Woodland, AL ............................................................................ 39,000 

City-Wide Integrated Transportation Planning, Detroit, MI ............. 250,000 

Cleveland Road Improvements, St. Joseph County, IN ..................... 750,000 

Clifton Corridor Transit Study, Atlanta, GA ....................................... 500,000 

Coal Creek Parkway Completion, Newcastle, WA .............................. 1,000,000 

Coconut Creek Education Corridor, FL ............................................... 1,000,000 

Community Transportation Association of America Nationwide 

Joblinks, MA ....................................................................................... 2,300,000 

Commack Road Bypass Study, NY ....................................................... 400,000 

Construct Park Row Bypass in Houston, TX ...................................... 1,500,000 

Construction of Eldamain Road, IL ...................................................... 3,000,000 

Construction of Four Lane US 20 Sac County, IA .............................. 500,000 

Construction/Enhancement of Motts Lane, Penfield, NY ................... 100,000 

County Road 17 Project, IN .................................................................. 500,000 

County Road 357 South Repaving, Dixie County, FL ........................ 750,000 

County Route 113, Washington County, NY ....................................... 759,600 

CR 78 from Lee/Hendry Line to SR29 Hendry County, FL ............... 1,500,000 

Crooks Road, from 14 Mile Road to Elmwood Road/Meijer Drive, 

Clawson, MI ........................................................................................ 1,600,000 

Crossroads Initiative, Boston, MA ....................................................... 300,000 

CSAH 21, Scott County, MN ................................................................ 250,000 

Cumberland Avenue Improvements, TN ............................................. 500,000 

Dallas Woodall Rodgers Deck Plaza, TX ............................................. 250,000 

Delaware County Route 7, NY ............................................................. 500,000 

Dentville-Jack Road Project, Copiah County, MS ............................... 600,000 

Denver Streetcar Feasibility Study, Denver, CO ................................ 500,000 

Design and Reconstruct of Beacham Street, Everett, MA ................. 400,000 

Dexter Road Connector East Providence, RI ....................................... 350,000 

Diley Road Improvements, Pickerington, OH ..................................... 1,000,000 

Dobbs Ferry Parking Expansion, NY ................................................... 250,000 

Dominion Boulevard Bridge Replacement, Chesapeake, VA ............. 500,000 

Dorsey Drive Interchange in Grass Valley, CA ................................... 500,000 

Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Joplin, MO ...................................... 500,000 

Downtown Revitalization Project, Somerset, KY ................................ 500,000 

Downtown Traffic Movement Plan, Lexington, KY ............................ 400,000 

Drury Lane Extension Project, NY ...................................................... 1,500,000 

Dundee Road (IL Route 68)/New Road Intersection, IL ..................... 1,300,000 

East 14th Street Streetscape Improvements, San Leandro, CA ........ 200,000 

East Burnside Corridor Street Improvements, OR ............................. 500,000 

East Lake Sammamish Parkway, Sammamish, WA .......................... 500,000 

East Point Roadway Improvement Project, GA .................................. 250,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
40 

East Washington Connector, Greenville, SC ....................................... 750,000 

Echo Park Streetscape and Safety Improvements, Los Angeles, CA 250,000 

Edinger Corridor Improvements, Huntington Beach, CA .................. 250,000 

El Paso River Trail, TX ......................................................................... 200,000 

Elliot/Spring Street Improvement Springfield, MA ............................ 500,000 

Ellis Preserve at Newtown Square, PA ............................................... 250,000 

Enhancement of the Fruit Belt Corridor, Buffalo, NY ....................... 900,000 

Evacuation Route Widening, FL ........................................................... 1,000,000 

Expansion of Ashburton Avenue, NY ................................................... 500,000 

Expansion of Southfield Road, Southfield, MI .................................... 450,000 

Exposition Line Crenshaw Crossing Station District, CA .................. 400,000 

Fairfax Parkway at Fair Lakes Boulevard and Monument Drive, 

VA ........................................................................................................ 1,500,000 

Fairmont Gateway Connector System, WV ......................................... 1,700,000 

Fall Mountain Water Project, CT ......................................................... 100,000 

FAST Corridor Grade Separations, Auburn, Kent, and Puyallup, 

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

Figueroa Boulevard Streetscape, Highland Park, CA ........................ 200,000 

Flats East Bank Project, Cleveland, OH ............................................. 400,000 

FM3071 from SH107 to FM1925, Hidalgo County, TX ...................... 200,000 

Four Mile Run Improvements, VA ....................................................... 250,000 

Franklin Streetscape, WV ..................................................................... 200,000 

Fraser Street, State College, PA .......................................................... 1,000,000 

Fredrick Douglas Bridge/Property Acquisition, DC ............................ 300,000 

Friends of Cheat Rails-To-Trails program, WV .................................. 300,000 

Fulton Drive and Wales Avenue Intersection Improvement, OH ...... 500,000 

Gallipolis Farm Road Phase II Project, OH ........................................ 300,000 

Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge, TX ........................................... 1,000,000 

Georgetown Southwest Bypass between SH29 and FF2243, TX ....... 500,000 

Gessner Road Grade Separation at US90A, TX .................................. 200,000 

Glennwillow Multi-Use Trail, OH ........................................................ 300,000 

Global Reach Interchange, El Paso, TX ............................................... 300,000 

Grade Separations in Riverside, CA .................................................... 500,000 

Grand Avenue Improvements, Poughkeepsie, MI ............................... 500,000 

Grand Rapids Passenger Rail and Station Relocation, MI ................ 500,000 

Grant County Economic Corridor, IN .................................................. 250,000 

Great Barrington Streetscape, Great Barrington, MA ....................... 1,000,000 

Greater Jamaica Development Corporation Atlantic Avenue Improvement, NY ................................................................................... 500,000 

Green Circle Project, Winchester, VA .................................................. 100,000 

Gwynedd-Mercy College Street Improvements, PA ............................ 200,000 

Hametown Bridge Replacement, Wooster Township, OH .................. 400,000 

Harlem Hospital Garage and Access Improvements, New York, NY 500,000 

Harrisburg Grade Separation, Houston, TX ........................................ 300,000 

Hayward County Road S/Dombeck Road Improvements, WI ............ 600,000 

Hiawatha/46th Pedestrian Bridge, Minneapolis, MN ......................... 300,000 

Highway 10 Marshfield-Stevens Point, WI ......................................... 1,800,000 

Highway 15 State Route 609 Connector, MS ...................................... 500,000 

Highway 17–A from US 176, Moncks Corner, SC .............................. 250,000 

Highway 217 Improvement Project OR ............................................... 300,000 

Highway 29 Conversion to Full Access Freeway, NJ ......................... 400,000 

Highway 37 On/Off Ramp, Vallejo, CA ................................................ 200,000 

Highway 45 Columbus Bypass, Columbus, MS .................................. 2,000,000 

Highway 51/Highway 29, Wausau, WI ................................................ 1,900,000 

Highway 53 Safety Improvements Haugen and Spooner, WI ............ 1,000,000 

Highway C, Bayfield County, WI ......................................................... 2,000,000 

Highway/Bridge Improvement Route 116, Penobscot, ME ................. 250,000 

Highway-Rail Grade Cross Bypass, Silver Springs, NY ..................... 720,000 

Hollywood Boulevard Roadway Improvements, FL ............................ 200,000 

Holy Cross Road Safety Project, Worcester, MA ................................. 500,000 

Hot Springs, East-West Arterial, AR ................................................... 500,000 

Houghton Road Corridor, Pima County, AZ ........................................ 1,000,000 

Houston Computerized Traffic Signal System, TX ............................. 500,000 

Houston Freeway Landscaping and Maintenance, TX ....................... 500,000 

I–210 Soundwall, La Canada Flintridge, CA ...................................... 500,000 

I–215/University Interchange, San Bernardino, CA ........................... 500,000 

I–285/Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, GA .......................................... 200,000 

I–35 Southwest Connector Interchange, Warren County, IA ............ 275,000 

I–44 Widening Yale to the Arkansas River, Tulsa, OK ...................... 250,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
41 

I–5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority, CA ............................ 750,000 

I–565 West Extension in Decatur, AL ................................................. 1,000,000 

I–70 Frederick County, MD .................................................................. 250,000 

I–710 Corridor/Gerald Desmond Bridge Gateway Program, CA ....... 750,000 

I–74 and Northern Beltway, Eastern Extension, NC ......................... 500,000 

I–75, Collier Boulevard, and SR 84 Interchange, FL ......................... 500,000 

I–95 Slip Ramp/Dedham Street, Town of Westwood, MA, ................. 750,000 

Illinois Route 120 Corridor Initiative, IL ............................................ 2,000,000 

Imperial Avenue Corridor Master Plan, CA ........................................ 300,000 

Improvements to US Highway 199 at Gasquet in Del Norte County, CA .................................................................................................. 80,000 

Improvements to NH 12 through Charleston, NH .............................. 1,000,000 

Improvements to Route 266 and Interchange with I–44, Springfield, MO ............................................................................................. 1,750,000 

Improvements to SR 101 in South Bend, WA ..................................... 400,000 

Improvements to Streetscape in Enfield, CT ...................................... 295,000 

Indian Bend Road Improvements Scottsdale, AZ ............................... 1,500,000 

Interchange and Mainlanes on SH121, TX ......................................... 750,000 

Interchange at SR120/McKinley Avenue, CA ...................................... 750,000 

Interstate 70 Viaduct Realignment, KS ............................................... 500,000 

Isanti Bike Trail, Cambridge, MN ....................................................... 600,000 

Jack Dame Road Extension, City of Rochelle, IL ................................ 500,000 

Jimmy Davis Bridge (LA 511), LA ....................................................... 500,000 

Kaycee Main Street Project, WY .......................................................... 250,000 

Keystone Trail Extension, Omaha, NE ................................................ 250,000 

Knowlton Township, Warren County, NJ ............................................ 500,000 

LA 406 Widening, Plaquemines Parish, LA ........................................ 200,000 

LA 63, Livingston Parish, LA ............................................................... 500,000 

Lac Qui Parle Lakes Association, Montevideo, MN ............................ 450,000 

Lea County Roads, MN ......................................................................... 500,000 

Lemon Street Project, Tarpon Springs, FL .......................................... 250,000 

Library Lane-Coles Lane Improvements, Bronx, NY ......................... 700,000 

Lincoln Bypass on SR 65 in Placer County, CA .................................. 1,000,000 

Lincoln Center Streetscape, New York, NY ........................................ 200,000 

Lincoln/Belmont Ashland Streetscape, Chicago, IL ............................ 3,000,000 

Little Neck Parkway Railroad Crossing Safety Upgrade, NY ........... 250,000 

Lockport Flight of Five, Niagara County, NY ..................................... 500,000 

Long Island Expressway Sound Barrier, NY ...................................... 500,000 

Luther Forest Road Improvements, Saratoga County, NY ................ 1,610,400 

Madison County Highway 21, TX ........................................................ 1,000,000 

Mahoning Avenue Safety/Capacity Improvement, Youngstown, OH 200,000 

Main Street Bridge, Buffalo, NY .......................................................... 500,000 

Mallard Fox West Industrial Complex-Crossover, AL ........................ 400,000 

Mannington Rails-to-Trails program, WV ........................................... 200,000 

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Highway 101, CA ......................................... 300,000 

Market Street Gateway Project in Upper Darby, PA ......................... 250,000 

Martin Luther King Jr. Streetscape, St. Louis, MO ........................... 100,000 

Mass Commute Traffic Congestion Initiative, MA ............................. 100,000 

Mattern Avenue Drainage Project, Dormont Borough, PA ................ 230,000 

McClintock Bridge, Venango County, PA ............................................ 400,000 

McClurg Road Extension Project, OH .................................................. 200,000 

MD 246, MD 235 to Saratoga Drive, MD ............................................ 1,200,000 

Merrill Bypass, Highway 51 Repaving, WI ......................................... 1,800,000 

Miami Beach Atlantic Corridor, Greenway, FL .................................. 500,000 

Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, MN ................................................ 400,000 

Miller Road Widening in McHenry County, IL ................................... 300,000 

Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Improvement, Niles, IL ......................... 200,000 

Moline River Tech Boulevard, IL ......................................................... 300,000 

Mon/Fayette Expressway, Uniontown to Brownsville, PA ................. 2,000,000 

Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, Monterey, CA ........................ 500,000 

Muscle Shoals-Peach Tree Street Extension to Industrial Park, AL 300,000 

Nash Road/Route AB, Cape Girardeau County, MO .......................... 1,000,000 

NC 211 Interchange at US 74, NC ....................................................... 200,000 

NC 3 Widening in Kannapolis, NC ...................................................... 1,000,000 

NE 120th Street Roadway Extension, Kirkland, WA ......................... 400,000 

Nebraska Highway 35, NE ................................................................... 1,000,000 

New Germany-Trebein Road Improvements, OH ............................... 1,000,000 

New Glarus Crossing at State Highway 69, WI ................................. 200,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
42 

New York Hall of Science Pedestrian Walkway and Safety Improvements, NY .................................................................................. 150,000 

Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, OR ............. 200,000 

Newport Seawall and Road Construction, RI ...................................... 500,000 

NH 16 Improvement Project, Ossippe, NH ......................................... 1,000,000 

NH 1A Bridge Replacement, Hampton, NH ........................................ 750,000 

North Hollywood Streetscape Enhancements, CA .............................. 300,000 

North I Road, Hildago County, TX ....................................................... 500,000 

Northern Grimes County CR 172 Asphalt Paving, TX ....................... 400,000 

Northfield Streetscape, MA .................................................................. 600,000 

Northwestern Highway Extension Roundabout, Oakland County, 

MI ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Norwalk Center-West Avenue Redevelopment Area, CT ................... 1,000,000 

NW Butler Transportation Improvement, Millville, OH .................... 3,220,000 

NW Intermodal Terminal with Ports of Indiana ................................ 1,250,000 

NY State Route 9 Bridges, Central and Hudson Peekskill, NY ........ 1,000,000 

Oak Ridge Cemetery, Springfield, IL ................................................... 1,000,000 

Ocmulgee Heritage Trail, Macon, GA .................................................. 300,000 

OKI Council of Government Technology Planning Initiative, OH .... 280,000 

Otay Mesa Port of Entry, CA ............................................................... 150,000 

PA 706, Susquehanna County, PA ....................................................... 750,000 

PA Route 19 from Pine Creek to Wallace Road, PA ........................... 500,000 

Pali Puamana Parkway and Honoapi’ilani Highway Realignment, 

HI ........................................................................................................ 400,000 

Palm Bay Parkway, Palm Bay, FL ...................................................... 3,000,000 

Park Avenue Relocation Project, Kokomo, IN ..................................... 1,000,000 

Park Place Extension and Railroad Grade Separation, Los Angeles 

County, CA ......................................................................................... 500,000 

Park Street Streetscape Improvement, Alameda, CA ........................ 300,000 

Parking Lot Repairs at Asnuntuck CC in Enfield, CT ....................... 700,000 

Paving of SD 34 East from Madison, SD ............................................. 250,000 

PD&E for widening Florida SR 46 from SR 415 to US Highway 1, 

FL ........................................................................................................ 726,000 

Pearl Street Road Enhancements, FL ................................................. 200,000 

Pedestrian Bridge at Honey Creek, Appanoose County, IA ............... 500,000 

Pedestrian Bridge at Pullman Square, WV ......................................... 500,000 

Pedestrian Overpass US 441, Habersham, GA ................................... 410,000 

Pedestrian Trail Extension, Hammond, IN ......................................... 400,000 

Pedestrian Walkway/Streetscaping, Ellenville, NY ............................ 300,000 

Pennsylvania Route 93 Expansion in Columbia County, PA ............. 250,000 

Peters Road Extension, Plaquemines Parish, LA ............................... 300,000 

Pico Rivera SR 19/Slauson Avenue Intersection, CA .......................... 400,000 

Pindell School Road Bridge in Howard County, MD .......................... 500,000 

Pinellas Bicycle Trail Extension, FL .................................................... 1,500,000 

Pittsfield Downtown Streetscape, Pittsfield, MA ................................ 1,820,000 

Plantation Multi-Use Recreational Trail (MURT), FL ....................... 500,000 

Plymouth Transportation Park Gateway/Harbor Walk MA .............. 500,000 

Port of Albany Security/Operational Improvements, NY ................... 100,000 

Port of Gold Beach Dock Renovation, OR ............................................ 500,000 

Port of Orange Intermodal Project, Orange, TX ................................. 500,000 

Quadral Drive Extension, City of Wadsworth, OH ............................. 1,100,000 

Quakertown Interection Alignments, PA ............................................. 500,000 

Rail Grade Separation Highway 77, Marion, AR ................................ 500,000 

Rail Traffic Mitigation Planning for Brookings, SD ........................... 500,000 

Railroad Crossing on S Curve in Pierre, SD ....................................... 1,000,000 

Railroad Quiet Zone, Hamburg, NY ..................................................... 80,000 

Railroad Relocation, Terre Haute, IN .................................................. 500,000 

Raleigh Street Extension, WV .............................................................. 1,000,000 

Ranchero Road Underpass/Corridor Project, CA ................................ 1,250,000 

Reconstruct Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Fall, CT ............................. 1,000,000 

Reconstruction of Alexander Street, Chippewa Falls, WI .................. 700,000 

Reconstruction of Long Point Road in Houston, TX ........................... 1,000,000 

Reconstruction of New Highway Road, NY ......................................... 500,000 

Reconstruction of Pearl Street in Enfield, CT ..................................... 980,000 

Reconstruction of US–169, Montgomery County, KS ......................... 1,500,000 

Reconstruction US–50, Harvey County, KS ........................................ 1,000,000 

Rehabilitate Kapiolani Boulevard and Atkinson Drive, HI ............... 500,000 

Relocation of Boston College Transit Stop, MA .................................. 200,000 

Relocation of SR 794 in Springfield, OH ............................................. 1,250,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
43 

Repaving of Rocky Point Landing Road, NY ....................................... 250,000 

Replace the KY7 Bridge at Beechy Creek, Boyd, KY ......................... 550,000 

Rickenbacker Intermodal Rail Spur, OH ............................................. 750,000 

Rio Bravo and El Cenizo Streetscape Project, TX ............................... 300,000 

River Walk and Resurfacing Project, Hudson, WI .............................. 100,000 

RM 1431 Improvements, Cedar Park, TX ........................................... 400,000 

Roger Sneden Drive Grade Separation Boone, IA .............................. 725,000 

Ronald Reagon Parkway, Hendricks County, IN ................................ 750,000 

Rose Crossing Connection, Kingston, TN ............................................ 500,000 

Route 1 and SR 452 Redevelopment, Middletown Township, PA ..... 250,000 

Route 1 Bridge Rehabilitation, Portsmouth, NH ................................ 750,000 

Route 10/202 Southwick, MA ................................................................ 1,560,000 

Route 116, Amherst, MA ....................................................................... 2,000,000 

Route 12 and Vicinity of Murray Center, Elmira, NY ........................ 500,000 

Route 22 Sustainable Corridor, NJ ...................................................... 500,000 

Route 22 Sustainable Corridor, Somerset County, NJ ....................... 2,000,000 

Route 23 Realignment, Sussex, NJ ...................................................... 1,500,000 

Route 24 Additional Lanes, Raynham and Taunton, MA .................. 750,000 

Route 267, St. Louis County, MO ......................................................... 400,000 

Route 287 and Route 17 Intersection Improvements, NJ .................. 500,000 

Route 30 and Mount Pleasant Road Interchange Improvement, PA 400,000 

Route 309 Intelligent Transportation Systems, PA ............................ 2,000,000 

Route 31 (Ashby State Road), Fitchburg, MA ..................................... 750,000 

Route 356 Buffalo Signals, PA .............................................................. 500,000 

Route 495 Southbound Ramp, Mansfield and Norton, MA ................ 500,000 

Route 5 and Route 10, Bernardston, MA ............................................. 2,530,000 

Route 50 East Widening-Poland Road to Route 28, VA ..................... 500,000 

Route 60/422 Interchange in Union Township, PA ............................. 500,000 

Route 63 in Howell and Oregon Counties, MO ................................... 500,000 

Route 67, Butler County, MO ............................................................... 500,000 

Route 88/Route 837 Intersection Improvement New Eagle, PA ........ 1,000,000 

Route Y, Stoddard County, MO ............................................................ 500,000 

Safety and Traffic Improvements, Ardsley, NY .................................. 150,000 

Safety Improvements to Highway 69, AZ ............................................ 1,000,000 

Safety Upgrades for I–376 Designation, PA ........................................ 1,000,000 

San Fernando Valley Streetlight Enhancements, CA ........................ 500,000 

San Gabriel Valley Gold Line Foothill Extension, CA ....................... 500,000 

Sandoval County Northwest Loop Access Road, NM .......................... 500,000 

Santa Anita and Fern-Elliot Signal Improvements, South El 

Monte, CA ........................................................................................... 160,000 

Santa Clara County Montague Expressway, CA ................................ 200,000 

Santa Clarita Cross Valley Connector, CA .......................................... 500,000 

Santa Rosa Intelligent Transportation System, CA ........................... 200,000 

Sarasota-Manatee Intelligent Transportation System, FL ................ 500,000 

Scott Ranch Road Extension, AZ .......................................................... 750,000 

SE Connector Project, Des Moines, IA ................................................. 500,000 

Seaview Avenue Corridor Project, Bridgeport, CT .............................. 1,000,000 

Second Bridge to Oak Island, NC ......................................................... 300,000 

SEPTA Villanova Station Intermodal Project, PA .............................. 250,000 

SFgo Market Street Improvements, CA .............................................. 300,000 

SH 9, Tecumseh to Seminole, OK ........................................................ 900,000 

Shaw Road Extension, Puyallup, WA .................................................. 400,000 

Sheffer Bridge Replacement, Columbia County, NY .......................... 630,000 

Sierra College Boulevard Interchange in Rocklin, CA ....................... 500,000 

Signal Improvements, Huntington Park, CA ...................................... 200,000 

Signal System Upgrade on Lahser Road in Southfield, MI ............... 300,000 

Signal/Intersection Improvement, Pittsburgh, PA .............................. 400,000 

Skidaway Narrows Bridge Replacement, GA ...................................... 1,500,000 

Somerset Street Traffic Mitigation, Portland, ME .............................. 250,000 

Soundwall Improvements, Rosemead, CA ........................................... 100,000 

South Airport Road, Boone County, KY .............................................. 1,170,000 

South Bronx Greenway, Randall’s Island Connector, NY .................. 520,000 

South La Brea Avenue and Imperial Highway Roadway, CA ........... 300,000 

South Orient Railroad Rehabilitation, TX ........................................... 1,000,000 

Southwest 11th Way, Deerfield Beach, FL .......................................... 300,000 

Spring Hill College Campus Access Project, AL ................................. 500,000 

Spruce Street Bridge Replacement, City of Wooster, OH .................. 500,000 

SR 100 and Kernsville Road, Lowhill Township, Lehigh County, PA 500,000 

SR 109 Division Street to S of SR–24, Wilson County, TN ............... 200,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
44 

SR 113 and Old Alabama Road Relocation, GA .................................. 500,000 

SR 417 at Boggy Creek Road Interchange Orlando, FL ..................... 1,000,000 

SR 688 and Ulmerton Road, FL ........................................................... 2,500,000 

SR 982/Talbotton Road to Hilton Avenue, Columbus, GA ................. 500,000 

St. Croix River Bridge and Approaches, WI ........................................ 500,000 

St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad at Danville, ME ......................... 200,000 

St. Mary’s College Route 5 Overpass, River Center, MD ................... 500,000 

Stage Road, Tate County, MS ............................................................... 475,000 

Stamford Rail Underpass Access Project, CT ...................................... 1,500,000 

State Highway 25, Barron County, WI ................................................ 1,800,000 

State Highway 6 Barron Rd Interchange, TX ..................................... 500,000 

State Highway 77, Ashland County, WI .............................................. 1,000,000 

State Line Road Reconstruction Dearborn County, IN ...................... 1,000,000 

State Road 37 to Sare Road, Monroe County, IN ............................... 500,000 

State Road 87 Expansion, Santa Rosa County, FL ............................ 250,000 

State Route 180 Improvements, CA ..................................................... 500,000 

State Route 21 Improvements and Upgrades, PA .............................. 1,000,000 

State Route 21, Intersection at Junction Deli, PA .............................. 1,000,000 

State Route 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway East) Extension, State 

Route 96 East of Franklin to State Route 6, North of Franklin, 

Williamson County, TN ..................................................................... 750,000 

State Route 4 Widening (Brentwood Boulevard), CA ......................... 500,000 

State Route 52 East/West Improvements, San Diego, CA ................. 500,000 

State Route 60/Potrero Road Interchange, Beaumont, CA ................ 500,000 

State Route 76 San Diego, CA .............................................................. 500,000 

State Street Improvements, Madison, WI ........................................... 1,000,000 

Stonestreet Avenue Corridor-Park Road, Rockville, MD .................... 500,000 

Stony Run Township Road in Yellow Medicine County, MN ............. 100,000 

Street Improvements, Glenwood, IL .................................................... 150,000 

Street Reconstruction, Wyandotte, MI ................................................. 750,000 

Streetscape Development, Prairie du Chien, WI ................................ 500,000 

Streetscape Lighting in Floosmoor, IL ................................................. 150,000 

Stuttgart, Arkansas Overpass at Highway 165, AR ........................... 1,000,000 

Suitland Parkway/Martin Luther King Avenue Interchange, MD .... 500,000 

Suitland Road Gateway, MD ................................................................ 1,200,000 

Sunport Boulevard Extension, NM ...................................................... 400,000 

Suspension Bridge, Warsaw, MO ......................................................... 500,000 

Syracuse Connective Corridor, Syracuse, NY ...................................... 2,000,000 

Theodore Berry Way, Cincinnati, OH .................................................. 500,000 

Thorn Run Road Interchange, Moon Township, PA ........................... 1,200,000 

To Add Lanes on I–55 from Weber to I–80, IL ................................... 500,000 

To Widen Walton Bridge over I–75, Oakland County, MI ................. 400,000 

Tolt Bridge Replacement, King County, WA ....................................... 1,000,000 

Torrington Gateway Initiative, CT ....................................................... 100,000 

Towamencin Township Street Improvements, PA .............................. 300,000 

Town Center Streetscape Improvements, Eastchester, NY ............... 250,000 

Town of Casey Engineering and Road Improvements, WI ................. 1,100,000 

Town of LaPointe Bike Trail, WI ......................................................... 450,000 

Town of Turtle Lake Resurfacing of 1/2 Street, WI ............................ 250,000 

Town Street Bridge Repairs, Columbus, OH ....................................... 1,500,000 

Townline Road, Wheatfield and Pendleton, Niagara County, NY ..... 500,000 

Traffic Calming Measures in Windermere, FL ................................... 500,000 

Traffic Signal Modernization, Lakewood, CA ...................................... 250,000 

Trailways Station Revitalization in Macon, GA .................................. 400,000 

Tremont Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Massillon, OH ........... 500,000 

Trunk Highway 36, North St. Paul, Ramsey County, MN ................. 250,000 

Tucson Railroad Safety and Access, Tucson, AZ ................................. 1,500,000 

Turnaround at Hester’s Crossing, Round Rock, TX ............................ 700,000 

Twin Bridge Road, Decatur, IL ............................................................ 1,000,000 

Twin Peaks Corridor Project, Marana, AZ .......................................... 1,500,000 

Twin Peaks Corridor, Marana, AZ ....................................................... 1,500,000 

University of Southern Indiana Campus Perimeter Project, IN ....... 1,000,000 

University of Virginia South Lawn Project, VA .................................. 2,000,000 

University Parkway Project, Vanderburgh County, IN ...................... 2,000,000 

Upgrade of NH 16 in the Towns of Milan and Dummer, NH ............ 1,500,000 

Upgrade Route 94, from East of Harvestor Road to West of MidRivers Drive, St. Charles County, MO ............................................. 750,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
45 

Upgrade Signals and Install SCATS/FAST–TRAC Technology on 

Maple Road from Orchard Lake to Cranbrook, Oakland County, 

MI ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Upgrade U.S. 70 in Conover, NC ......................................................... 500,000 

US 15 Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, PA ............................. 1,250,000 

US 17 and 92–US 192 (Vine) to Portege, Osceola County, FL .......... 1,000,000 

US 190 and Collins Boulevard Widening, LA ..................................... 500,000 

US 2 Safety and Mobility Enhancements, WA ................................... 500,000 

US 271 Relief Route from US 67 to FM 3417, TX .............................. 500,000 

US 278 Corridor, SC .............................................................................. 750,000 

US 287 Bypass Expansion, Ennis, TX ................................................. 500,000 

US 290 and SH 36 Improvements, Brenham, TX ............................... 500,000 

US 31 at Lincoln Highway, Marshall County, IN ............................... 500,000 

US 36 Connection to South Shelby High School, MO ........................ 500,000 

US 377 Expansion from SH 144 to Acton Highway, TX .................... 500,000 

US 385 Expansion South of Crane to McCamey, TX .......................... 750,000 

US 401 in Cumberland, Harnett and Wake Counties, NC ................ 250,000 

US 422 Interim Improvement Project, PA .......................................... 250,000 

US 441 Highway Improvements, FL .................................................... 300,000 

US 441/SR 7 Interchange, City of Lauderhill, FL .............................. 300,000 

US 63 in Waterloo, IA ........................................................................... 500,000 

US 69 Ramp Access, Durant, OK ......................................................... 450,000 

US 9W and NY 81 Intersection, NY .................................................... 750,000 

US Highway 14 Expansion from West of Waseca to I–3, MN ........... 750,000 

US Highway 301 and I–95 Interchange, SC ....................................... 2,500,000 

US Highway 90 East Widening, FL ..................................................... 250,000 

US Hwy 190, Reliever Route, Copperas Cove, TX .............................. 400,000 

US Route 1 and Route 123 Interchange, Prince William County, 

VA ........................................................................................................ 500,000 

US Route 35, WV ................................................................................... 1,300,000 

US–34 Corridor Missouri River Bridges Pair, NE .............................. 1,000,000 

US–395 North Spokane Corridor, WA ................................................. 500,000 

US–50, Gray County, KS ...................................................................... 500,000 

Ventura County Farm Crossings, CA .................................................. 500,000 

Village of Hempstead, Revitalization, NY ........................................... 100,000 

Waco 574 Loop, TX ................................................................................ 250,000 

Wadsworth Interchange/State Highway 128, CO ............................... 500,000 

Walden Rail Trail Connection, Orange County, NY ........................... 200,000 

Walerga Road Bridge Project in Roseville, CA .................................... 500,000 

Walker Street Grade Separation Project, Cary, NC ........................... 500,000 

Warwick Intermodal Station Improvements, RI ................................. 400,000 

Wausau Bridge Street Interchange, WI ............................................... 2,600,000 

Wayne County Bridge Project in Roseville, CA ................................... 500,000 

Webber Canyon Road Realignment, Benton County, WA .................. 750,000 

Wells Highway Extension/Sheep Farm Road, SC ............................... 500,000 

Westbury Avenue Streetscape and Small Business Revitalization, 

NY ....................................................................................................... 400,000 

Westside Parkway, Alpharetta, GA ..................................................... 500,000 

White Bluff Intersection Widening Project, TX ................................... 200,000 

Whittier and Sycamore Street Bridge, Columbus, OH ....................... 500,000 

Widen Route 82 in Norwich, CT ........................................................... 1,525,000 

Widen US 60 between Bartlesville and Pawhuska, OK ..................... 500,000 

Widening and Improvements, I–405, CA ............................................. 250,000 

Widening of Loop 281, Longview, TX ................................................... 250,000 

Winter Haven Dundee Road, FL .......................................................... 500,000 

Xerox Area Road Improvements, Monroe County, NY ....................... 1,000,000 

Yucca Loma Bridge/I–15 Congestion Relief Project, CA .................... 750,000 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation (TIFIA) 

program.—The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in 

the development of surface transportation projects of regional and 

national significance. The goal is to develop major infrastructure 

facilities through greater non-federal and private sector participation, building on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or 

user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than 

would be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA 

program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
46 

lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. As 

required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 1992 

and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any year), as 

well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy 

amounts are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative 

expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

Federal highway research, technology and education.—Research, 

technology, and education programs develop new transportation 

technology that can be applied nationwide. Activities include surface transportation research, including intelligent transportation 

systems; development and deployment, training and education; university transportation research. 

High priority projects.—Funds are provided for specific projects 

identified in SAFETEA–LU. A total of 5,091 projects are identified, 

each with a specified amount of funding over the five years of 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Projects of national and regional significance.—Provides funding 

for specific projects of national or regional importance. All the 

funds authorized for this program from the highway trust fund are 

designated for projects listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

(RESCISSION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The bill includes a rescission of $2,000,000,000 of the unobligated 

balances of funds apportioned to the states under chapter 1 of title 

23, United States Code, excluding safety programs and funds set 

aside within the state for population areas. The Committee directs 

the FHWA to administer the rescission by allowing each state maximum flexibility in making adjustments among the apportioned 

highway programs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that distributes 

obligation authority among federal-aid highways programs. 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that provides 

additional funding to the transportation, community, and system 

preservation program. 

Section 123. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass included in 

Public Law 102–143. 

Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed demonstration or 

high priority projects from previous laws. The specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded were identified in information 

provided to GAO and referenced in a GAO report dated May 11, 

2006. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
47 

Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program. 

Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available for obligation because of the limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this 

Act and prior Acts. 

Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for fiscal year 2005, 

under title 5 of Public Law 109–59, for transportation research that 

will not be available for obligation because of the limitation on obligation imposed on those funds under title 5 of such law for fiscal 

year 2005. 

Section 128. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway project 

included in section 378 of Public Law 106–346. 

Section 129. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits any of the funds provided in or limited by this Act from 

being used by the State of Alaska to develop, plan, design, or construct a bridge connecting the Island of Gravina and the community of Ketchikan or the Knik Arm Bridge. The provision also prohibits the FHWA from reimbursing the State of Alaska for these 

expenses. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial vehicle 

operations on our nation’s highways. To accomplish this mission, 

the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity of 

large truck accidents. Agency resources and activities contribute to 

ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against 

safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; 

improvements in information systems; training; and improvements 

to commercial driver’s license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, the FMCSA works closely 

with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

In addition, the FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican commercial vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all U.S. 

hazardous material and safety regulations. 

The FMCSA’s scope was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the 

U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107–56), which called for new security measures. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2002, Appropriations Acts (Public Law 107–87, Public Law 108–7, Public Law 

108–199, and Public Law 108–447) have funded border enforcement and safety related activities associated with implementation 

of NAFTA, and activities associated with permitting of hazardous 

materials. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), enacted August 10, 2005, 

reauthorizes the motor carrier safety activities of FMCSA through 

fiscal year 2009 and provides increased funding for many of the 

agency’s programs. Funding for the FMCSA is also included within 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
48 

a highway discretionary spending category in the Budget Enforcement Act that is adjusted annually beginning in fiscal year 2007 

based on receipts into the highway account of the highway trust 

fund. Additional resources provided by this automatic spending 

mechanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA) 

and a portion of this adjustment is added to FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................................... $282,000,000 ($279,180,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................... 294,000,000 (294,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................ 294,000,000 (294,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .............................................................. +12,000,000 (+14,820,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................... – – – (– – –) 

The FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants program was authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, and continued through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA–LU. This account 

provides the necessary resources to the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) state grants. Grants are used to support 

compliance reviews in the states; identify and apprehend traffic 

violators; conduct roadside inspections; and support safety audits 

on new entrant carriers. Grants are also provided to states for enforcement efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of entry into the U.S. are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; for improvement of state commercial 

driver’s license (CDL) oversight activities to prevent unqualified 

drivers from being issued CDLs; and for improving the linkage between state motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety 

data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $294,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

this program. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$294,000,000 for the grant programs of FMCSA. This level is consistent with SAFETEA–LU and is $14,820,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 level. In addition, consistent with SAFETEA–LU, the highway funding guarantees are adjusted for RABA in fiscal year 2007. 

Of the amount provided under RABA, an amount to be calculated 

is available to FMCSA for the motor carrier safety grant program 

and bill language is included under the Federal Highway Administration to transfer this funding to FMCSA. 

The bill also provides separate obligation limitations for the following funding allocations: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
49 

Motor carrier safety assistance program ............................................. ($197,000,000) 

Commercial driver’s license improvements program .......................... (25,000,000) 

Border enforcement grants ................................................................... (32,000,000) 

Performance and registration information system management program .................................................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment 

program ............................................................................................... (25,000,000) 

Safety data improvement program ....................................................... (3,000,000) 

Commercial driver’s license information system modernization program .................................................................................................... (7,000,000) 

New entrant audits.—Section 31104(f)(5) of title 49, United 

States Code, as amended by SAFETEA–LU, provides the secretary 

the discretion to deduct up to $29,000,000 of the funds made available for motor carrier safety grants for audits of new entrant motor 

carriers. The interim final rule for the new entrant safety assurance process was published on May 13, 2002, with an effective date 

of January 2003. This rule requires all new entrants to pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of operations in order to receive 

permanent DOT registration. Therefore, the Committee strongly 

urges the department to use this authority to fund the new entrant 

program to the full extent allowable. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................................... $213,000,000 ($210,870,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................... 223,000,000 (223,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................................ 223,000,000 (223,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .............................................................. +10,000,000 (+12,130,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................... – – – (– – –) 

This limitation controls spending for salaries and operating expenses and for motor carrier research by the FMCSA. It provides 

the necessary resources to support motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. 

Funding supports nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer 

enforcement efforts, including federal safety enforcement activities 

at the U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering 

the U.S. are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, 

research and technology, safety education and outreach, and the 

safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $223,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

the operations and research activities of the FMCSA, consistent 

with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA– 

LU. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
50 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$223,000,000 for the implementation, execution, and administration of the motor carrier safety program, motor carrier safety research, and motor carrier outreach and education programs by the 

FMCSA. This funding level is consistent with SAFETEA–LU and 

represents a $12,130,000 increase over fiscal year 2006. 

Bill language is included that makes the $10,296,000 provided 

for research and technology programs available until September 30, 

2009. 

The Committee also continues bill language that prohibits any 

funds relating to outreach and education from being transferred to 

another agency. 

Safety compliance reviews.—The Committee continues to be concerned that only a very small percentage of registered motor carriers undergo a safety compliance review each year. FMCSA’s own 

fiscal year 2007 budget submission estimates that only 10,000 compliance reviews will be conducted by the agency in fiscal year 2006 

out of approximately 685,000 registered interstate motor carriers— 

less than 1.5 percent of registered motor carriers. In addition, the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included truck 

safety on its current list of ‘‘Most Wanted Transportation Safety 

Improvements’’ because FMCSA’s entire safety fitness regime operates too leniently with criteria that do not result frequently enough 

in dangerous, unsafe motor carriers being shut down or drivers 

having their licenses revoked, and that FMCSA’s compliance review standards actually allow unsafe motor carriers to continue to 

operate. The Committee directs FMCSA to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 

March 1, 2007, on how it will revise the compliance review process 

to improve detection of motor carriers with poor safety practices 

and cease their operations. 

Entry level truck driver training.—The Committee notes that earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous decision remanding the FMCSA’s final rule on entry level truck driver 

training. The Court found that FMCSA did not adequately address 

the recommendations of a DOT contracted adequacy report and 

independent model curriculum on driver training. According to the 

Court, FMCSA ‘‘entirely failed to consider important aspects of the 

CMV training problems before it; it largely ignored the evidence in 

the adequacy report and abandoned the recommendations of the 

model curriculum without reasonable explanation; and it adopted 

a final rule whose terms have almost nothing to do with an ‘‘adequate’’ CMV training program.’’ The Committee is concerned that 

15 years has elapsed without the issuance of a comprehensive 

entry-level driver training standard. The Committee believes that 

FMCSA should expedite its revisions to the driver training rule 

and carefully consider the obvious benefits of a comprehensive 

training requirement that includes on-street, behind-the-wheel 

skills training for entry-level truck drivers. 

Motor coach accessibility.—The Committee is concerned about reports that a number of curbside motor coach operators are not in 

compliance with the department’s regulations requiring accessibility to over-the-road buses for people with disabilities (49 CFR 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
51 

part 37, Subpart H). The Committee understands that the Department of Justice has general enforcement authority for violations of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, it is the DOT that 

is responsible for ensuring that only bus companies that are willing 

and able to comply with DOT regulations receive, and retain, interstate registration. The Committee urges the secretary to give serious consideration to withholding interstate registration from a 

motor coach operator that is not willing and able to comply with 

the department’s regulations on providing access for the disabled. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide 

a letter report on what specific actions DOT will take to improve 

accessibility for the disabled to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by February 15, 2007. 

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized for the old ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ 

and ‘‘National Motor Carrier Safety Program’’ accounts that will 

not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations 

imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 

funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107–87, including a requirement that the 

secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of 

title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.)); (2) the Highway Safety Act 

(chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information 

and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 

U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for 

the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles 

and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, 

including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register, which was reauthorized by the 

National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.) to be carried 

out by the states and for highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized a 

new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
52 

U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed collision 

bumper standards, consumer information activities and odometer 

regulations. Amendments to this law established the responsibility 

for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy 

standards, theft prevention standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included numerous new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement 

that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety 

campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of 

motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar 

to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties 

for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety 

of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating 

consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 

NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. These include 

highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.), highway 

safety research and development (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.), 

occupant protection incentive grants (section 405 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants 

(section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.), and the national driver register 

(chapter 303 of title 49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA–LU also enacted new 

initiatives, such as the high visibility enforcement program (section 

2009 of SAFETEA–LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of 

SAFETEA–LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU). Finally, SAFETEA– 

LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and information 

provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in 

side impact crashes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $821,500,000 for NHTSA to maintain 

current programs and continue its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations: 

2006 enacted 2007 request Committee 

recommendation 

Operations and research .......................................................... $230,132,430 $227,250,000 $229,750,000 

National driver register ............................................................. 3,960,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Highway traffic safety grants ................................................... 572,394,240 583,750,000 587,750,000 

Total ................................................................................. 806,486,670 815,000,000 821,500,000 

The Committee’s recommendation provides $6,500,000 over the 

budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
53 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(General fund) (Highway trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 1 .................................. – – – $234,092,430 $234,092,430 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................. – – – 231,250,000 231,250,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................. 122,000,000 111,750,000 233,750,000 

Bill compared to:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ........................... +122,000,000 ¥122,342,430 ¥342,430 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ........................ +122,000,000 ¥119,500,000 +2,500,000 1 Includes transfer of funds from FHWA. 

The operations and research appropriations support research, 

demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for 

highway safety programs conducted by state and local government, 

the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety 

associations and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol 

and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 

enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 

records and licensing, state and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and older driver 

safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, NHTSA requested a total of $231,250,000 

for operations and research activities to be funded entirely using 

contract authority from the highway trust fund. This is contrary to 

current law. Under NHTSA’s proposal, SAFETEA–LU would be 

modified to provide additional contract authority in place of the 

current general fund authorization. This funding would then be allocated from two different accounts. First, NHTSA requested 

$227,250,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund to 

finance operations and research activities under section 403 of title 

23, U.S.C., as well as to carry out the provisions of section 301 of 

title 49, U.S.C. and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C. Under 

SAFETEA–LU, only section 403 of title 23, U.S.C. is authorized 

with contract authority out of the highway trust fund. This funding 

is also included within the budgetary firewall guarantee for highway spending. Second, the budget included $4,000,000 for the national driver register, which is authorized by SAFETEA–LU with 

contract authority from the highway trust fund and is included 

within the highway guarantee. 

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation 

limitations for a total program level of $233,750,000, less than a 

one percent decrease below fiscal year 2006. Of this total, 

$122,000,000 is for operations and research from the general fund; 

$107,750,000 is for section 403 of title 23, U.S.C., activities from 

the highway trust fund; and $4,000,000 is for the national driver 

register from the highway trust fund. The funding shall be distributed as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
54 

Salaries and benefits .......................................................................... $75,813,000 

Travel .................................................................................................. 1,364,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................ 22,355,000 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance (rulemaking) .............................................. 14,155,000 

Safety assurance (enforcement) ................................................. 18,277,000 

Highway traffic safety programs ............................................... 52,390,000 

Research and analysis ................................................................ 66,473,000 

General administration ............................................................... 673,000 

Grant administration reimbursements ............................................. ¥17,750,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 233,750,000 

Highlights of and adjustments made to the budget request by the 

Committee’s recommendation are described in the following paragraphs. 

ADMINSTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $99,532,000 for salaries and benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA. 

Additional full time equivalent staff years (FTE).—Included within these funds, the Committee approves an increase of $224,000 to 

fund two additional FTE—one for the emergency medical services 

program to perform the work required in Section 10202 of 

SAFETEA–LU and one for the E9–1–1 initiative. The Committee 

denies the additional FTE and associated increase in funding for 

the behavioral international activities program until such time as 

the agency can adequately explain the need for this increase. 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)

NHTSA’s safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs 

support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety standards 

for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment; automotive fuel 

economy standards required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety, including the new car 

assessment program. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides $14,155,000 for these activities. 

New car assessment program (NCAP).—Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $10,500,000 for NCAP. 

SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)

The Committee recommends $18,277,000, as requested, for safety 

assurance (enforcement) programs to provide support to ensure 

compliance with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy 

standards, investigate safety-related motor vehicle defects, enforce 

federal odometer law, encourage enforcement of state odometer 

law, and conduct safety recalls when warranted. The Committee 

expects NHTSA to use these funds as reflected in its budget justification. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical assistance, 

and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by 

state and local governments, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. 

These programs emphasizes alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
55 

ical and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, state 

and community evaluation, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. The Committee recommends $52,390,000 for these programs. 

Mitigating human trauma in vehicle collisions.—Within the 

funds provided, the Committee directs $350,000 to the Worcester 

Polytechnic Institute’s Center for Impact Protection Systems to 

continue research focused on mitigating human trauma in vehicle 

collisions through the use of advanced impact attenuation design. 

Impaired driving mobilization.—The Committee is greatly concerned that the preliminary assessment of the 2005 motor vehicle 

fatality data projects that overall fatalities increased by 1.3-percent 

over 2004. Even more alarming is that the early assessment for alcohol-related fatalities increased by 278 fatalities, or 1.7 percent, 

after two consecutive years of declining fatalities. The Committee 

directs NHTSA to redouble its efforts to reduce the number of fatalities and, in particular, to reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities. In that regard, the Committee is aware that NHTSA 

is in the process of developing a new theme for the impaired driving high visibility enforcement mobilization which will occur in the 

weeks surrounding the Labor Day holiday. The Committee understands that NHTSA has conducted outreach and focus groups to 

identify and select a new theme which should emphasize both the 

danger and consequences of impaired driving. Once a new theme 

is selected, the Committee directs NHTSA to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to introduce this new theme to the general public. The Committee expects NHTSA’s inauguration of the 

new impaired driving theme to receive at least an equal level of attention and effort as the agency provides to the annual launch of 

the seat belt enforcement mobilization. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

The Committee recommends $66,473,000 for research and analysis activities to provide motor vehicle safety research and development in support of all NHTSA programs, including the collection 

and analysis of crash data to identify safety problems, develop alternative solutions, and assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness. 

Research will continue to concentrate on improving vehicle crash 

worthiness and crash avoidance, with emphasis on increasing safety belt use, decreasing alcohol involvement in crashes, decreasing 

the number of rollover crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash 

compatibility, and improved data systems. 

Fatality analysis reporting system (FARS).—The Committee includes $7,813,000 for FARS, an increase of $750,000 above the 

budget request in order to improve the quality of the data collected 

by FARS. NHTSA is directed to utilize this increase to conduct 

quality control workshops and to establish quality control procedures to improve the reporting of restraint usage, blood alcohol 

concentration levels, fires, rollovers and other important data. 

National automotive sampling system (NASS).—The NASS general estimates system data identifies trends of vehicle crashes and 

the NASS crashworthiness data system provides more in-depth and 

descriptive data in order to quantify the relationships between the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
56 

occupants and vehicles in the real-world crash environment. The 

Committee is concerned that the number of crashes in which data 

is collected has dropped to about 4,500 cases and therefore provides 

$12,980,000, an increase of $750,000 above the budget request, in 

order to increase the number of cases where data is collected. 

Counterfeit automobile parts.—The Committee is concerned about 

the safety risks posed by the influx of counterfeit automobile parts 

into the U.S. marketplace. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for 

a demonstration project to research promising technologies to combat counterfeit auto parts that are non-compliant with federal regulations and pose safety risks. This project should include measures to track the importation of counterfeit and non-compliant auto 

parts and an analysis of supply chains to identify entry points for 

these parts. The Committee encourages NHTSA to work with other 

federal agencies as appropriate, including the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

National motor vehicle crash causation survey (NMVCCS).—The 

Committee provides $7,000,000 for the NMVCCS, which is equal to 

the fiscal year 2005 funding level as requested. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $673,000, as requested, for the general administration account to provide program evaluation, strategic planning, and economic analysis for agency programs. Objective quantitative information about NHTSA’s regulatory and highway safety programs is gathered to measure their effectiveness in 

achieving objectives. This activity also funds development of methods to estimate economic consequences of motor vehicle injuries in 

forms suitable for agency use in problem identification, regulatory 

analysis, priority setting, and policy analysis. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $122,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +122,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +122,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $122,000,000 for operations and research funding as an appropriation from the general 

fund. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................................... $232,457,000 ($230,132,430) 1

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................................... 227,250,000 (227,250,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................................... 107,750,000 (107,750,000) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
57 

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................................. ¥124,707,000 (¥122,382,430) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .............................................................. ¥119,500,000 (¥119,500,000) 1 Includes transfer of funds from FHWA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of contract authorization of $107,750,000 for payment on obligations 

incurred in carrying out the provisions of the operations and research program. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent 

with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA– 

LU. 

The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the high- way trust fund to $107,750,000 for authorized activities associated 

with operations and research. 

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized from the highway trust fund for 

NHTSA’s operation and research activities that will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on 

those funds in previous acts. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................................................... $4,000,000 ($3,960,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................................... 4,000,000 (4,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 4,000,000 (4,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .......................................................................... – – – (+40,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ...................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

This account provides funding to implement and operate the national driver register’s problem driver pointer system and improve 

traffic safety by assisting state motor vehicle administrators in 

communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol 

or other drugs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation of $4,000,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations incurred 

in carrying out the national driver register program. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the 

highway trust fund to $4,000,000 for operations and research activities associated with the national driver register, of which 

$3,075,000 is for program activities and $925,000 is for salaries 

and benefits. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
58 

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized for the national driver register that 

will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ........................................................................... $578,176,000 ($572,394,240) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................................... 583,750,000 (583,750,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................................... 587,750,000 (587,750,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................................. +9,574,000 (+15,355,760) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .............................................................. +4,000,000 (+4,000,000) 

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 grant programs: safety 

belt performance grants, state traffic safety information systems 

improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child 

safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $587,750,000 in liquidating cash 

from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations of 

the various highway safety grant programs at the levels provided 

in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the amount of contract authority 

provided for highway traffic safety grant programs under 

SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee continues language limiting the obligations to be 

incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee has provided limitations on obligations at the level prescribed in SAFETEA–LU, with separate 

obligation limitations for the following funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs ..................................................................... ($220,000,000) 

Occupant protection incentive grants .................................................. (25,000,000) 

Safety belt performance grants ............................................................ (124,500,000) 

State traffic safety information systems improvements ..................... (34,500,000) 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants ............. (125,000,000) 

High visibility enforcement program ................................................... (29,000,000) 

Motorcyclist safety ................................................................................. (6,000,000) 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants ............... (6,000,000) 

Bill language.—The bill maintains language that prohibits the 

use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 

or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is also continued that limits the 

amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under section 

410 of title 23, U.S.C. The Committee continues bill language limVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
59 

iting the amount that can be used to conduct the evaluation of the 

high visibility enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2007. 

Highway safety grants.—SAFETEA–LU reauthorized the state 

and community highway safety formula grant program under section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to support state highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A state may use these grants only for 

highway safety purposes and at least 40 percent of these funds are 

to be expended by political subdivisions of the state. 

Occupant protection incentive grants.—SAFETEA–LU amended 

section 405(a) of chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states 

to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce deaths and 

injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor 

vehicles. A state may use these grant funds only to implement and 

enforce occupant protection programs. 

Safety belt performance grants.—SAFETEA–LU established a 

new program of incentive grants under section 406 of title 23, 

U.S.C., to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in passenger motor vehicles. A state 

may use these grant funds for any safety purpose under title 23, 

U.S.C., or for any project that corrects or improves a hazardous 

roadway location or feature or proactively addresses highway safety problems. However, at least $1,000,000 of amounts received by 

states must be obligated for behavioral highway safety activities. 

State traffic safety information systems improvements.— 

SAFETEA–LU established a new program of incentive grants 

under section 408 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt 

and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of 

state data that is needed to identify priorities for national, state, 

and local highway and traffic safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements; to link these 

state data systems, including traffic records, with other data systems within the state; and to improve the compatibility of the state 

data system with national data systems and data systems of other 

states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze national trends 

in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. A state 

may use these grant funds only to implement such data improvement programs. 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants.— 

SAFETEA–LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of title 

23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt and implement effective 

programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of alcohol. A state may use 

these grant funds to implement the impaired driving activities described in the programmatic criteria, as well as costs for high visibility enforcement; the costs of training and equipment for law enforcement; the costs of advertising and educational campaigns that 

publicize checkpoints, increase law enforcement efforts and target 

impaired drivers under 34 years of age; the costs of a state impaired operator information system, and the costs of vehicle or license plate impoundment. 

High visibility enforcement program.—Section 2009 of 

SAFETEA–LU establishes a new program to administer at least 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
60 

two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each 

year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce 

alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/ 

or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. These funds may be used to pay for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media in carrying out traffic 

safety law enforcement campaigns. 

Motorcyclist safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU established a 

new program of incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and 

implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and 

multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists. A state may use 

these grants funds only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs, including improvement of training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist 

safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs. 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants.—Section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU established a new incentive grant program to make grants available to states that are enforcing a law 

requiring any child riding in a passenger vehicle who is too large 

to be secured in a child safety seat to be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements prescribed under section 3 of 

Anton’s Law (49 U.S.C. 30127 note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants 

may be used only for child safety seat and child restraint programs. 

Safe transport of Head Start children.—The Committee understands that NHTSA provided input into the regulations developed 

by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the 

safe transportation of Head Start children. Since the issuance of 

the final regulations, some Head Start grantees have reported that 

their transportation costs have consumed as much as 20 percent of 

the Head Start budget. The Committee believes that the safe transport of these children is paramount. The Committee directs the 

Secretary of Transportation to work with the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services to identify strategies to ensure the safe transport of children participating in a Head Start program. In addition, 

the Committee encourages NHTSA to explore the use of the child 

safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants as a means of 

assistance for the transportation of Head Start children. 

Grant administrative expenses.—Section 2001(a)(11) of 

SAFETEA–LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses related to the administration of the grants programs and 

supports the national occupant protection user survey and highway 

safety research programs. 

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized from the highway trust fund for 

NHTSA’s highway safety grant programs that will not be available 

for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on 

those funds in previous acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

funding for travel and related expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
61 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for 

planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe 

operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well 

as managing the high-speed ground transportation program. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs serving to rehabilitate and 

improve the railroad industry’s physical plant are also administered by FRA. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $144,490,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 150,578,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 150,083,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +5,593,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥495,000 

The safety and operations account provides support for FRA’s 

rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding 

also supports salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

A total of $150,083,000 is recommended for safety and operations, which is a $5,593,000 increase above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. Of this total, $13,870,890 is available until expended. 

The following adjustments have been made to the budget request: 

Reduce funding for rail integrity program staff .............................. ¥$397,000 

Delete funding for an additional emergency management coordinator ................................................................................................. ¥98,000 

New Positions.—The Committee provides funding for nine new 

rail integrity program staff, as requested. However, the Committee 

reduces funding to reflect quarter-year instead of half-year funding. 

The Committee notes that it has taken longer for FRA to hire staff 

with this type of specialized expertise. The Committee provides the 

requested level for two track safety specialists and one operations 

research analyst, and provides half-year funding consistent with 

the budget request. The Committee does not provide the position 

for emergency management coordinator due to budget constraints. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $54,524,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 34,650,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 34,650,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥19,874,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The railroad research and development appropriation provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. The objective of this program is to reduce 

the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide 

technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. It also stimulates technological advances in conventional and 

high speed railroads. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
62 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,650,000, for 

railroad research and development. Within the funds provided 

$6,435,000 is for positive train control, consistent with the budget 

request. 

Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high speed 

rail corridors.—The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–LU) reauthorized the railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high speed 

rail corridors program under section 104(d) of title 23, United 

States Code. In fiscal year 2007, SAFETEA–LU authorizes 

$10,000,000 for this program, $1,750,000 of which it earmarked. A 

limited number of corridors are eligible for these funds. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Public Law 105–178 established the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed 

$3,500,000,000 at any one time. Not less than $1,000,000,000 is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than 

class I carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, 

or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including 

track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) 

to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. No Federal appropriation is required, 

since a non-Federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form 

of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and 

necessary determinations and findings. The budget recommends rescinding the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not repeal the railroad rehabilitation and 

improvement program, as proposed by the President’s budget. The 

Committee continues bill language specifying that no new direct 

loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using federal 

funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal 

year 2007. 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,293,550,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 900,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 900,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥393,550,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act (RSPA) in 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia. Operations 

began on May 1, 1971. Amtrak’s purpose was to operate a national 

rail passenger system to relieve the freight railroads of the burden 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
63 

of money-losing passenger operations and to preserve rail passenger service over a national system. It was created as a for-profit 

government corporation that was granted the right for access to the 

tracks owned by the freight railroads at incremental cost and with 

operating priority over freight trains. Amtrak was also granted jurisdiction to provide intercity rail transportation over its route system. The framers of RSPA believed that after a few transitional 

years, Amtrak would make a profit and free itself from government 

assistance. 

STATUS OF AMTRAK

After years of increasing subsidizes with little reform, Congress 

passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act in 1997 (ARAA). 

The ARAA sought to impose change on the Corporation by providing the Corporation the flexibility to decide which routes and 

services it provided and by setting a specific time-frame for Amtrak 

to become operationally self-sufficient. The Act required Amtrak to 

eliminate its operating budget shortfall and become self sufficient 

by the end of 2002. Although Amtrak insisted it would meet this 

mandate, it did not. In fact, in its February 2002 report, the Amtrak Reform Council found that Amtrak’s financial performance 

since enactment of the ARAA deteriorated to such a degree that 

the railroad was weaker by the end of 2001 than it was prior to 

the enactment in 1997. Instead of exploring ways to run the business more efficiently through controlling expenses, Amtrak embarked on a series of high cost investments, including implementing high-speed rail service on the Boston, New York City, and 

Washington Northeast Corridor expecting that such service would 

generate significant new net revenues after all expenses had been 

covered. However, Amtrak’s high-speed service took too long, was 

extremely costly to implement, and continues to suffer from technical problems. 

While Amtrak was representing to Congress that it was on the 

‘‘glidepath’’ to self-sufficiency, it was deferring essential capital investments on the Northeast Corridor and financing increasing 

amounts of its operating expenses through a strategy of desperation by borrowing against its assets to pay for day-to-day operations. Amtrak’s outstanding debt soared and today, the Corporation is shackled by the legacy of its failures with annual debt service that approximates $300,000,000 per year. By 2001, Amtrak was 

forced to mortgage its right to use Pennsylvania Station in New 

York City—the most intensely used passenger facility of any kind 

in the United States, through which 40 percent of Amtrak’s passengers pass—just to pay its employees and buy fuel to get through 

another year. Again in 2002, Amtrak was forced to borrow another 

$100,000,000, this time from the Department of Transportation, 

and seek a $205,000,000 supplemental appropriation, just to meet 

operating expenses. By this time, the deferred maintenance on Amtrak-owned capital assets was driving operating expenses up as 

more day-to-day maintenance was required. Reliability, as measured by on-time performance was dropping. Amtrak was in a downward spiral that, absent significantly greater infusions of Federal 

funds, would inevitably end up with the corporation bankrupt. 

Every informed observer of the intercity passenger rail service 

situation in the U.S.—from the Administration and the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
64 

ment of Transportation, to the Government Accountability Office, 

to Amtrak’s Board of Directors themselves—all agree that the current model for providing intercity passenger service is in need of 

significant reform. The status quo continues to produce financial 

instability and poor service quality. Despite multiple efforts over 

the years to reform Amtrak, the system continues to limp along, is 

never in a state-of-good-repair, awash in debt, and perpetually on 

the edge of collapse. In the end, Amtrak has been tasked to be all 

things to all people, but the model under which it operates leaves 

many unsatisfied. 

The authorization for Amtrak contained in the ARAA expired in 

2002. Amtrak’s request for funding in fiscal year 2007 is triple the 

level of appropriations provided for the benefit of the Corporation 

as recently as fiscal year 2001, a rate of growth almost unparalleled for domestic programs in these difficult budget times. Not 

only has no reauthorization been enacted, no reauthorization with 

meaningful reform that could address the insatiable demand of 

Amtrak for more Federal dollars has passed either body of Congress. The Appropriations Committee has been forced to singlehandedly impose reforms on Amtrak. Amtrak has lacked the initiative or inspiration to reform itself, and in the past, has appeared 

only to implement reluctantly required Congressional reforms. 

However, it appears that Amtrak now understands the need to 

reform. Although Amtrak continues to operate with substantial 

losses on each line, the railroad is approaching a place of financial 

accountability. According to the DOT Inspector General, the Amtrak Board of Directors and current management seem committed 

to reform, efficiency improvements are beginning to be implemented and some reductions in required operating subsidies are 

being realized. Because reforms require sustained commitment, 

and Amtrak has had problems maintaining such commitment, this 

Committee and the American taxpayer cannot afford to loosen the 

reins. Therefore, the Committee continues to build on the reforms 

contained in prior appropriations Acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $900,000,000 for grants to Amtrak 

in fiscal year 2007, consistent with the budget request. The Committee amends the fiscal year 2006 account structure, and provides 

these funds in two accounts—capital and debt service grants and 

efficiency incentive grants. The Committee continues many reporting and grant making provisions contained in prior appropriations 

Acts and includes a number of reforms that build on the initiatives 

of prior years. 

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS

The Committee provides $400,000,000 to the Secretary of Transportation to make operating subsidy grants to Amtrak. Similar to 

the fiscal year 2006 Act, Amtrak must first submit grant requests 

to the Secretary and include a detailed financial analysis with revenue and capital expenditures justifying federal support for each 

train route. The Secretary may condition the award of grant funds 

on reform requirements and progress toward such reforms. Before 

any grants containing new routes are released, the DOT Inspector 

General must perform a review to determine the financial and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
65 

operational short and long-term implications and report that information to the Secretary. The bill does not allow funds to be used 

for operating expenses, including advance purchase orders that are 

not approved by the Secretary and in the corporation’s fiscal year 

2007 business plan. 

The bill sets aside $60,000,000 to carry out directed service for 

commuter rail operations in the event that Amtrak is forced to 

cease operations. 

The bill mandates that Amtrak achieve operational efficiencies in 

food and beverage, first class service, and overhead expenses and 

continues to require the DOT IG to submit quarterly reports tracking Amtrak’s progress in this area. Consistent with the fiscal year 

2006 Act, the Secretary is prohibited from subsidizing losses in food 

and beverage or sleeper car service if the IG cannot certify by July 

1, 2007 that Amtrak has achieved savings. 

The Committee notes that Amtrak has taken steps to reduce its 

losses on food and beverage service and has begun discussing strategies to reduce losses on its first class service. The Committee directs Amtrak to transmit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriation within 120 days of enactment detailed plans to improve food and beverage service and first class service (including 

sleeper car service) so that these programs are revenue neutral on 

a fully allocated basis by September 30, 2008. The Committee requires quarterly progress reports thereafter. 

The Committee notes that in Amtrak’s fiscal year 2007 grant request package, a total of $293,700,000 remains unallocated to any 

route or line of business. The bill thus requires Amtrak to provide 

an accounting of its overhead expenses as of October 1, 2006 and 

detail allocated and unallocated amounts. This report must also include a plan to reduce system overhead expenses by 10 percent annually. 

The Committee notes that outsourcing reservation services and 

the use of electronic ticketing is commonplace in other transportation sectors. Therefore, the Committee directs this report to include information on expenses associated with intercity passenger 

rail reservations and ticketing, and a comparison of expenses to 

those associated with domestic airlines and intercity bus service. 

Amtrak shall explore technology enhancements including electronic 

ticketing to determine the operational and financial ramifications. 

The bill includes a provision that Amtrak shall reduce its overhead 

expenses by 10 percent annually. 

If the IG deems the funding necessary, the bill allows up to 

$5,000,000 for the continued development of the managerial cost 

accounting system. Within 30 days of development, the IG is directed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the system and 

how it can be implemented to improve Amtrak decision making. 

The bill also includes a provision directing Amtrak to submit 

within 120 days of enactment to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations, a detailed plan for accounting system improvements including the integration with other processes. This will 

allow for more informed decisions-making associated with the financial ramification of proposed changes to routes and services. 

The plan shall also ensure that Amtrak’s Route Profitability System (RPS) provides more current and accurate information on reveVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
66 

nues and expenses on all routes and services, including unallocated 

expenses. 

The bill continues a provision directing Amtrak to transmit its 

Board approved business plan to the Secretary, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation under 49 USC 24104(a), and 

monthly reports in electronic format regarding the pending business plan and justification for any sole source contract awards. In 

addition, the Committee expects that Amtrak will submit its annual operations report as required by 49 USC 24315. 

The bill continues to require Amtrak to repay its loan to the Department of Transportation, and continues a provision that prohibits funding on routes where Amtrak is offering 50 percent or 

more off the normal, peak fare. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS

The Committee provides $500,000,000 for capital grants to Amtrak, of which no more than $280,000,000 is for debt service payments. Amtrak must first submit grant requests to the Secretary 

justifying federal support for each capital project. The bill does not 

allow funds to be used to subsidize operating losses or for capital 

projects that are not approved by the Secretary and in the corporation’s fiscal year 2007 business plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation Lifesaver. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

Authorization for programs under the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(P.L. 109–59). Annual appropriations acts provide funding by annual limitations on obligations for the formula and bus grants only. 

Direct appropriations of budget authority from the General Fund 

of the Treasury is provided for administrative expenses, research 

programs, and capital investment grants. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
67 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $79,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 85,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 85,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +5,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for FTA’s salaries and 

expenses, an increase of $5,800,000 over the fiscal year 2006 funding level and the same as the budget request as directed by 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Should the Committee have had the authority to determine basic 

salaries and expenses of the FTA, the Committee’s recommendation 

would have assumed reductions totaling $2,000,000 from the budget request, and directed the reductions in three areas First, while 

the Committee commends FTA on the ability ‘‘to make program decisions based on information beyond anecdotes and prior-year funding levels,’’ the goal of getting to or maintaining ‘‘green’’ is not an 

acceptable or thorough justification for $1,535,000 as proposed for 

budget performance and integration. The Committee did not determine what activities or performance goals would constitute ‘‘green,’’ 

or what factors would be measured in accountability agreements 

with the DOT leadership, and therefore sees little reason to fund 

such activities. 

Second, the Committee would not have provided funds for FTA 

to centralize Federal grant making as described under Research 

and University Research Centers. FTA has already created a grant 

program, and the Committee has chosen to continue funds for that 

already successful investment. The Committee sees little reason to 

fund duplicative programs and directs FTA to refrain from transferring or utilizing funds (up to $494,000) for this purpose. Third, the Committee would not have provided $279,000 as requested for continued competitive sourcing activities. In the opinion 

of the Committee, the greatest savings will come from not providing the funds. 

The Committee recommends funding for offices at the following 

levels: 

Office of the Administrator ................................................................... $1,063,000 

Office of Administration ........................................................................ 7,654,000 

Office of Chief Counsel .......................................................................... 4,273,000 

Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ......................... 1,394,000 

Office of Program Management ............................................................ 8,403,000 

Office of Budget and Policy ................................................................... 9,259,000 

Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation ............................ 4,876,000 

Office of Civil Rights ............................................................................. 3,272,000 

Office of Planning and Environment .................................................... 4,718,000 

Regional Total ........................................................................................ 22,420,000 

Central Account ..................................................................................... 17,668,000 

The administrator is authorized to transfer funding between offices. Any transfers totaling more than five percent of the initial 

appropriation from this account must be approved by the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to submit future 

budget justifications in a similar format to the fiscal year 2007 

budget materials, consistent with the instruction provided in House 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
68 

Report 109–153. With the companion new starts report, FTA has 

significantly improved the documents and information submitted to 

the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee has again included language requiring FTA to submit the annual new starts report with the initial submission of the budget request due in February, 2007. 

Transit security.—The Committee reiterates its direction as stated in House Report 108–671 regarding transit security. The Committee’s position remains that the Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation security. As stated on the 

TSA website: ‘‘All new improvements will be coordinated with the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which has overall 

responsibility for transportation security among all modes of transportation, including rail and transit lines.’’ As such, the Committee 

recommends the same number of FTE for the security office as provided in fiscal year 2005. 

Project management oversight activities.—The Committee directs 

FTA to continue reporting monthly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with a full 

funding grant agreement or is within two years of a full funding 

grant agreement. The Committee finds the monthly updates informative and a useful oversight tool. 

To further support oversight activities, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General $2,000,000 from funds available for contract execution for costs associated with audits and investigations 

of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed guideway 

systems. The Committee directs the Inspector General to continue 

such oversight activities in fiscal year 2007. 

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21, as amended, 

requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty 

days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the 

Committee directs the FTA to include the following: (1) a copy of 

the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total 

federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2007; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an evaluation of 

whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 

project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which 

shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and 

(9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty 

days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
69 

full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to changes 

shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding 

grant agreement, including any proposed change in rail car procurements. 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................. $6,910,132,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 7,262,775,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,262,775,000 

Bill compared with: 

Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................... +352,643,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant program, over-the-road 

bus accessibility program, urbanized area formula grants, bus and 

bus facility grants, fixed guideway modernization, planning programs (both metropolitan and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, 

formula grants for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute formula program, new freedom program, growing 

states and high density states formula, National Transit Database, 

alternatives analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and 

public lands. Contract authority from the Mass Transit Account of 

the Highway Trust Fund was provided under SAFETEA–LU. This 

appropriations Act provides the obligation limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA account funded from the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides $7,262,775,000 in obligation limitations for transit formula and bus grants as authorized in 

SAFETEA–LU and is consistent with the budget request and rules 

of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Committee’s recommendation does include a cancellation of $28,661,000 in unobligated prior year balances of grant funds as proposed in the budget 

request. This rescission will not affect any on-going project or 

grant. 

Under the obligation limitation provided, SAFETEA–LU mandates funding levels for the various programs under this account. 

The Committee makes no changes to the set-asides contained in 

SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee has included a new administrative provision, as 

proposed in the budget request. Section 163 allows FTA to provide 

grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-installed 

or retrofitted hybrid electric bus system. This new authority, plus 

the $45,000,000 provided under SAFETEA–LU for the clean fuels 

grant program, is a good response to the direction in House Report 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
70 

109–307 encouraging FTA to provide more incentives for hybrid 

electric bus systems. 

The Committee has heard from a number of communities and 

transit agencies adversely affected by the SAFETEA–LU change to 

the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. Prior to 

SAFETEA–LU, JARC was funded as a separate account to meet 

specific transit needs of low income populations and those needing 

transit to underserved areas. With SAFETEA–LU, JARC was 

merged into the larger Formula and Bus Grants account, and funds 

may be spread too thinly. The Committee directs the administrator 

to report by May 4, 2007 on the effects of this change on the ability 

of former recipients of JARC funds to meet the goals of the program. 

Of the funds provided for alternatives analysis, the Committee 

directs funds for the following priorities, as eligible under existing 

law: 

Jupiter Corridor, FL .............................................................................. $250,000 

Atlanta MARTA North Line Corridor, Georgia ................................... 250,000 

Belt Line/C-Loop Project, Atlanta, GA ................................................. 250,000 

Honolulu High Capacity Transit Project, HI ....................................... 250,000 

Illinois Valley Commuter Rail, IL ........................................................ 250,000 

North Shore Corridor and Blue Line Extension, MA ......................... 250,000 

ITP/Rapid Travel, MI ............................................................................ 250,000 

North Shore Passenger Rail, Staten Island, NY ................................. 250,000 

Lane Transit District, Pioneer Parkway EmX Corridor, OR ............. 250,000 

Allengheny County—East-West Corridor Rapid Transit, PA ............ 250,000 

Denton County Transportation Authority Fixed Guideway, TX ........ 250,000 

Of the funds provided for bus and bus facilities, the Committee 

directs funds for the following priorities, as eligible under existing 

law: 

AL Multimodal Downtown Parking System/Dallas Branch ............ $600,000 

AR State of Arkansas, Bus and Bus Facilities Sec 5309 ................. 4,000,000 

AZ East Valley Bus Maintenace Facility Tempe .............................. 1,500,000 

AZ Main Street Bus Rapid Transit, Mesa ......................................... 1,000,000 

AZ Phoenix 27th Avenue/Baseline Park-and-Ride ........................... 1,000,000 

AZ Phoenix/Glendale Express Expansion Buses .............................. 1,000,000 

AZ Phoenix/Glendale West Valley Operation Facility ..................... 1,000,000 

AZ Tucson Alternate Fuel Replacement Buses ................................. 1,000,000 

CA Anaheim Regional Trans. Intermodal Center, Orange County 400,000 

CA Beach Cities Transit Coastal Shuttle Capital Equipment ........ 500,000 

CA City of Modesto Bus Maintenace Facility ................................... 1,200,000 

CA City of Santa Maria Intermodal Transit Center ........................ 300,000 

CA Clean-Air Buses for Cerritos ........................................................ 300,000 

CA San Joaquin Regional Transit District County Facility Construction Project ................................................................................. 500,000 

CA East County Bus Maintenance Facility, El Cajon ...................... 1,500,000 

CA East Los Angeles College Busway, Monterey Park .................... 150,000 

CA Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots .................... 400,000 

CA Ed Roberts Campus, Berkeley ..................................................... 550,000 

CA Expand and Improve Yolobus Operations, Yolo County ............ 200,000 

CA Fairfield/Vacaville Intermodal Station ........................................ 850,000 

CA Foothill Transit, San Gabriel Valley ........................................... 2,000,000 

CA Humboldt Transit Authority Maintenance Facility ................... 400,000 

CA LACMTA La Cienega Intermodal Transfer Facility .................. 400,000 

CA LAMTA Paratransit Services ....................................................... 250,000 

CA Los Angeles Southwest College Bus Shelter .............................. 450,000 

CA Monrovia Transit Village ............................................................. 1,000,000 

CA Monterey Salinas Transit, Monterey ........................................... 500,000 

CA MTOC Bus and Bus Facility Project ........................................... 2,700,000 

CA Northridge Transit Center, Northridge, Los Angeles County ... 100,000 

CA Orange Line Safety Improvements Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

County ................................................................................................. 500,000 

CA Pacific Station Multimodal Center, Santa Cruz ......................... 500,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
71 

CA Placerville Station II ..................................................................... 350,000 

CA Regional Bus Replacement, San Diego County .......................... 450,000 

CA Rio Hondo College Public Transit Pilot Program ....................... 200,000 

CA Riverside and Corona Transit Centers ........................................ 1,250,000 

CA Riverside Transit Agency Bus Stop Upgrades ............................ 250,000 

CA Sam Trans Revenue Collection System ...................................... 500,000 

CA San Francisco MTA Bus and Bus Facility Upgrades ................. 3,000,000 

CA San Luis Rey Transit Center ....................................................... 500,000 

CA Senior Transit Bus, South El Monte ........................................... 80,000 

CA South Coast Area Transit Bus Facility Construction ................ 200,000 

CA South Coast Area Transit Bus Replacement .............................. 200,000 

CA Street Shuttle Buses for Artesia .................................................. 200,000 

CA Sunline Transit Agency Bus Replacement .................................. 500,000 

CA Transit Center Parking Structure, Baldwin Park ..................... 150,000 

CA Union City Intermodal Station, Union City ............................... 400,000 

CA Yosemite Regional Area Transportation System ........................ 300,000 

CO Colorado Transit Coalition-Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities 2,000,000 

CT Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center ........................... 1,250,000 

CT Hartford Downtown Circulator .................................................... 500,000 

CT New Britain-Hartford Busway ..................................................... 1,000,000 

CT SEAT Transit Project for Norwich ............................................... 750,000 

CT South Norwalk Intermodal Facility Phase 2 .............................. 1,000,000 

CT West Haven Intermodal Station .................................................. 1,200,000 

DC Union Station (ITC) ...................................................................... 1,500,000 

FL 7th Avenue Transit Hub, Miami .................................................. 600,000 

FL Additional 40-Foot Buses, Palm Beach County .......................... 200,000 

FL AVL and UAFC Palm Tran, Palm Beach County ...................... 250,000 

FL Broward County Alternative Fuel Buses .................................... 300,000 

FL Broward County Southwest Transit Facility .............................. 1,000,000 

FL Bus and Bus Facilities, St. Johns COA ....................................... 750,000 

FL Bus and Bus Facilities, St. Lucie County ................................... 1,500,000 

FL City of Gainesville RTS, Buses .................................................... 200,000 

FL City of Orlando LYNX, Buses ...................................................... 200,000 

FL CTCP, Jacksonville Transportation Authority ............................ 500,000 

FL HART Operations Facility, Tampa .............................................. 1,000,000 

FL Hydrogen Fuel Cell Initiative, Tallahassee ................................ 500,000 

FL Lakeland Area Citrus Connection Transit .................................. 400,000 

FL LYNX Buses, Orland ..................................................................... 500,000 

FL Miami Lakes Transit Program ..................................................... 500,000 

FL Miramar Eastern Transit Hub and Community Center ............ 200,000 

FL Palm Beach Gardens Public Transportation Program ............... 750,000 

FL Replacement of Six Mini-Buses for WHAT ................................. 400,000 

FL SFRTA Smart Card ....................................................................... 800,000 

FL SFRTA Station Improvements ..................................................... 500,000 

FL StarMetro Intelligent Transportation System ............................ 500,000 

FL Trolley System for Boynton Beach ............................................... 400,000 

FL Winter Haven Transit Authority ................................................. 150,000 

GA Augusta Public Transit, Bus and Bus Facilities ........................ 200,000 

GA Buses for Macon Transit Authority ............................................. 200,000 

GA Chatham Area Transit, Bus and Bus Facilities ......................... 1,000,000 

GA City of Moultrie Intermodal Facility ........................................... 300,000 

GA MARTA Bus Acquisition Program, Atlanta ................................ 500,000 

GA Moultrie Intermodal Facility ....................................................... 150,000 

IA 10 Heavy-Duty Buses, Cedar Rapids ........................................... 250,000 

IA Johnson County Para-transit Facility .......................................... 250,000 

ID Idaho Transit Coalition Buses and Bus Facilities ...................... 4,000,000 

IL Berwyn Intermodal Transit Facility ............................................. 550,000 

IL Chicago Transit Authority, Bus and Bus Facilities .................... 500,000 

IL Grand Avenue Transit Signal Priority, Lake County ................. 320,000 

IL Interfaith House, Chicago, Wheel Chair Accessible Van ............ 75,000 

IL Normal Multimodal Transportation Center ................................. 500,000 

IL PACE Lincoln Highway TSP, Joliet ............................................. 480,000 

IL Pace Suburban Bus for Interactive Voice System ....................... 250,000 

IL Pace Suburban Bus Roosevelt Road TSP ..................................... 300,000 

IL Pace Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights ....................................... 800,000 

IL Pace, MDTs for Chicago Paratrait Vehicles ................................. 400,000 

IL River Valley Metro, Kankakee ...................................................... 2,000,000 

IL Statewide Bus Request .................................................................. 3,000,000 

IN Bloomington Transit replacement buses ..................................... 750,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
72 

IN Downtown Transit Center, Indianapolis ...................................... 300,000 

IN Fort Wayne Citilink ....................................................................... 400,000 

IN INDOT Electric Hybrid Bus Initiative ......................................... 200,000 

IN Transit Acquisition and Intermodal Facility Project .................. 500,000 

KS City of Lawrence Bus Maintenance Facility ............................... 250,000 

KS Johnson County Transit Bus Replacement ................................. 500,000 

KS Kansas City Area Transit Authority Bus Replacement ............. 250,000 

KS Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority ...................................... 750,000 

KY Unified Government of Wyandotte Co/KCK Transit ................. 750,000 

KY Fulton Transit Authority ............................................................. 250,000 

KY Pennyrile Allied Community Services ......................................... 94,000 

KY TANK Bus Replacement .............................................................. 750,000 

KY Transportation Cabinet ................................................................ 400,000 

LA Historic Streetcar Restoration, New Orleans ............................. 320,000 

MA Attleboro Intermodal Center, Attleboro ..................................... 100,000 

MA BRTA/TANB Vehicles .................................................................. 160,000 

MA Bus Fleet Replacement Project, WRTA, Worcester ................... 300,000 

MA Community Transit Service Dial-A-Ride Athol ......................... 600,000 

MA Community Transit Service, Athol Station ................................ 400,000 

MA Construciton of Amesbury Bus Facility ..................................... 300,000 

MA Council on Aging, LRTA Buses ................................................... 75,000 

MA Fitchburg Intermodal Parking Garage ....................................... 500,000 

MA FRTA Bus Replacement ............................................................... 720,000 

MA Malden Massachusetts Shuttle Bus Service .............................. 300,000 

MA MART Gardner Storage/Maintenance Facility .......................... 1,000,000 

MA MART Leominster Commuter Parking ...................................... 4,500,000 

MA MART Storage, Leominster ......................................................... 1,600,000 

MA MART Vehicle Replacement ........................................................ 1,200,000 

MA Merrimack Valley RTA Buses ..................................................... 225,000 

MA Newton Rapid Transit Handicap Access Improvements ........... 500,000 

MA Rockport Station Improvements ................................................. 200,000 

MA Salem and Saugus Senior Buses and Vans ............................... 150,000 

MD APG Multi-Modal Trans. Center, Aberdeen .............................. 500,000 

MD Bi-County Transit Center, Langley Park ................................... 300,000 

MD Maryland Transit Administration Bus Replacement ................ 1,500,000 

ME Statewide Buses and Bus Facilities ........................................... 500,000 

MI Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Transit Center ................ 1,800,000 

MI Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority ............................................ 1,000,000 

MI CATA Bus Purchase, Lansing ...................................................... 500,000 

MI City of Detroit, Bus Replacement ................................................ 3,225,000 

MI County Connection, LLC, Midland .............................................. 500,000 

MI Eaton County Public Transportation Authority ......................... 250,000 

MI Greater Lapeer Transportation Authority .................................. 300,000 

MI Ionia Dial-A-Ride Vehicle Acquisition ......................................... 148,000 

MI Isabella County Transportation Commission .............................. 500,000 

MI ITP/The Rapid Hybrid-Electric Bus Acquisition ......................... 500,000 

MI Jackson County Large Bus Replacement .................................... 500,000 

MI Kalamazoo Metropolitan Transit ................................................. 1,500,000 

MI Mecosta Osceola Transit Authority, Big Rapids ......................... 300,000 

MI Sanilac Transportation Authority ................................................ 300,000 

MI SMART Capital Budget ................................................................ 1,000,000 

MI The City of Alma, Gratiot County ............................................... 628,000 

MI Twin Cities Dial-A-Ride ................................................................ 100,000 

MN Union Depot, St. Paul, Ramsey County ..................................... 550,000 

MO City of Springfield, Intermodal Parking Facility ...................... 3,500,000 

MO Columbia Transit ......................................................................... 250,000 

MO Franklin County Transit ............................................................. 176,800 

MO Serve Inc. ...................................................................................... 36,800 

MO St. Louis, MO Metro Bus and Paratransit Rolling Stock ......... 500,000 

MS Coast Transit Authority, Bus Fleet ............................................ 300,000 

NC City of Raleigh Replacement and Expansion Buses .................. 400,000 

NC Intermodal Transportaiton Facility, Winston-Salem ................. 500,000 

NC North Carolina PART Park and Ride Facilities ......................... 500,000 

NC Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities ............................................... 1,800,000 

ND North Dakota State Wide Transit ............................................... 500,000 

NJ BurLink Service, Mt. Holly, Burlington County ......................... 990,000 

NJ Morris County Intermodal Park and Ride .................................. 1,000,000 

NJ Morristown Historic Station Park and Ride ............................... 200,000 

NJ Newark Penn Station, Newark .................................................... 750,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
73 

NJ Northern New Jersey Intermodal Stations and Park N’Rides 3,000,000 

NJ Ocean Ride, Vehicle Replacement, Ocean County ...................... 250,000 

NJ Passaic/Bergen Intermodal Facilities and Rolling Stock ........... 700,000 

NJ South Amboy NJ Regional Intermodal Transportation ............. 300,000 

NJ Trenton Intermodal Transportation System ............................... 200,000 

NJ Upper Montclair Intermodal Facility .......................................... 200,000 

NV Central City Intermodal Transportation Terminal ................... 350,000 

NV Reno/Sparks Intermodal Transportation Terminals .................. 500,000 

NY Central NY Regional Transportation Authority ........................ 1,000,000 

NY Clean Fuel Bus Enhancements, Brookhaven, Suffolk County 250,000 

NY GJDCorp. Jamaica Intermodal Facilities ................................... 200,000 

NY Nassau County HUB .................................................................... 250,000 

NY Port Chester New York Intermodal Transit Center Bus Bays 750,000 

NY West 65th St Lincoln Center Area Bus Shelter Improvements 1,000,000 

OH Central OH Transit Authority, Paratransit Facility ................. 300,000 

OH KSU Multimodal Transportation Facility, Kent ........................ 300,000 

OH Lucas County Bio-Diesel Bus/Public Vehicle Fleet ................... 500,000 

OH Portage Area Regional Transit Authority, Kent ........................ 500,000 

OH Senior Transportation Connection Cuyahoga ............................ 250,000 

OH Uptown Crossings Parking/Intermodal Bus Facility ................. 750,000 

OH West Price Hill Park and Ride .................................................... 400,000 

OK Metro Transit Oklahoma City, COTPA Bus Replacement ........ 1,000,000 

OK Tulsa Transit Section 5309 Capital Appropriations .................. 500,000 

OR Bus Facilities and Property Acquisition, Yamhill County ........ 150,000 

OR Salem-Keizer Transit ................................................................... 200,000 

PA BARTA Franklin Street Station, Reading .................................. 1,000,000 

PA Capital Area Transit ..................................................................... 500,000 

PA Centre Area Transportation Authority ....................................... 1,200,000 

PA Church Street Transportation Intermodal .................................. 750,000 

PA County of Lebanon Transit Authority ......................................... 200,000 

PA Cranberry Area Transit Initiative ............................................... 250,000 

PA DuFAST Transit Authority Bus Replacement ............................ 600,000 

PA Expansion of the Scranton Electric Trolley System ................... 250,000 

PA Fayette County Area Coordinated Transportation ..................... 500,000 

PA Queen Street Station, Phase II, Lancaster ................................. 500,000 

PA RRTA Bus Replacement Program, Lancaster ............................. 250,000 

PA Schuykill Transportation System ................................................ 300,000 

PA York County Pennsylvania Transit Transfer Center ................. 500,000 

PA York County Transit Authority, York County ............................ 256,000 

TN Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility ......................................... 400,000 

TN Tennessee Statewide Buses ......................................................... 3,000,000 

TX Brazos Transit District, The Woodlands Express ....................... 250,000 

TX Cap Metro S IH35 Park and Ride Facility, Austin .................... 1,000,000 

TX Cap Metro-Oak Hill Park and Ride Facility, Austin .................. 1,000,000 

TX Capital Metro, Rapid Bus Project, Austin ................................... 250,000 

TX City of Abilene CitiLink ................................................................ 500,000 

TX City of Lubbock Citibus Improvement ........................................ 500,000 

TX Corpus Christi RTA Bus and Bus Facilities ............................... 250,000 

TX Denton County Transportation Authority, Buses ...................... 250,000 

TX East Texas Service Area Bus Replacement ................................ 250,000 

TX El Paso Bus Replacement ............................................................. 200,000 

TX VIA San Antonio Bus and Facility Modernization ..................... 400,000 

UT West Valley City, Utah, Intermodal Terminal Project .............. 1,000,000 

VA Fairfax County, REX Public Transit Initiative .......................... 250,000 

VA Greater Lynchburg Transit Bus Replacement ........................... 500,000 

VA Greater Richmond Transit Company .......................................... 500,000 

VA Hampton Roads Southwide Bus Facility .................................... 2,000,000 

VA I–66/Vienna Metro Accessibility Improvements ......................... 2,000,000 

VI VITRAN .......................................................................................... 200,000 

VT Statewide Fleet Replacement and Capital Assistance ............... 150,000 

VT Multi-Modal Transportation Facility Bennington .................... 250,000 

WA SW King County-Highline CC Intermodal Transit Facility 

and Parking Garage ........................................................................... 200,000 

WA Intercity Transit Multimodal Facility ........................................ 350,000 

WA Mercer Island Park and Ride, Mercer Island ............................ 500,000 

WI Wisconsin 7th District Bus and Bus Facilities ........................... 1,500,000 

WI Wisconsin Bus Capital .................................................................. 4,000,000 

WI Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities .............................. 3,000,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
74 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $74,448,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 61,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 65,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥9,448,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +4,000,000 

Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (Public Law 109–59) (SAFETEA–LU). Starting in fiscal year 

2006, activities formerly under the ‘‘Transit Planning and Research’’ account are now under the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account. The National Research program, the Transit Cooperative 

Research Program, and the National Institute are funded under 

this new heading. 

Funding for the National Research programs will be used to 

cover costs for FTA’s essential safety and security activities and 

transit safety data collection. Under the national component of the 

program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and deployment of transportation methods and technologies which address issues such as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services and operational improvements. 

The University Research Centers program will provide continued 

support for research education and technology transfer activities 

aimed at addressing regional and national transportation problems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for research activities 

of FTA, $9,448,000 below the fiscal year 2006 funding level and 

$4,000,000 above the budget request. Of the funds provided, consistent with SAFETEA–LU, the Committee’s recommendation includes $9,300,000 for transit cooperative research, $4,300,000 for 

the National Transit Institute, and $7,000,000 for the university 

centers program. 

Consistent with the responsibility for oversight of Treasury 

funds, the Committee directs FTA to report by May 18, 2007 on all 

FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2006 and 2007. 

For each project, the report should include information on the National relevance of the research, relevance to the transit industry 

and community, expected final product and delivery date, sources 

of non-FTA funding committed to the project or research institute, 

and FTA funding history. 

In addition, the Committee directs funds for the following priorities as eligible under existing law: 

Center for Transportation and the Environment: Hydrogen and 

fuel cell research ................................................................................ $500,000 

Transportation Research Center, Atlanta, GA .................................... 500,000 

Crash Protection and Safety, Wichita State University ..................... 500,000 

Next Generation Hybrid Electric Transit Bus, Broome County, NY 500,000 

SUNY Mill Woody Biomass Extraction Project, NY ........................... 450,000 

American Cities Transportation Institute, Philadelphia, PA ............. 500,000 

East Tennessee Hydrogen Initiative, Chattanooga, TN ..................... 1,000,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
75 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,440,682,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,466,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,566,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥125,682,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +100,000,000 

Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed guideway 

transit systems are awarded to public bodies and agencies (transit 

authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies 

thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions 

of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more 

states; and certain public corporations, boards and commissions 

under state law. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109–59) 

(SAFETEA–LU) made two significant changes to the major capital 

investment grant program. First, the program is now funded entirely from the General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for 

bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, 

plus alternative analysis funds are now eligible under the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account, which is funded by the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Grants to the Denali Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries are dictated by 

SAFETEA–LU. Other projects and investments are authorized by 

SAFETEA–LU and are subject to regulation and oversight by FTA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,566,000,000 for capital invest- ment grants, $100,000,000 above the budget request and 

$125,318,000 over the fiscal year 2006 funding level. The Committee’s recommendation provides $5,000,000 for the Denali Commission and $15,000,000 for ferry capital projects in 

Alaska and Hawaii; set-asides as required by SAFETEA–LU. In addition, the Committee recommends a total of $14,660,000, or approximately one percent, for oversight activities of the investments 

in this account. 

The Committee’s recommendation provides $571,878,399 to meet 

the Federal cost share mandated by full funding grant agreements 

already in existence, and authorized by SAFETEA–LU, for the following projects: 

AZ Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail ................................ $90,000,000 

CA Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension ..................................... 100,000,000 

CA Mission Valley East LRT Extension ...................................... 806,654 

CA Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor ....................................... 684,040 

CA BART Extension to San Francisco Airport ........................... 2,424,694 

CO Southeast Corridor LRT ......................................................... 80,000,000 

IL Douglas Branch Reconstruction ............................................. 1,573,675 

IL Ravenswood Line Extension ................................................... 40,000,000 

IL Union-Pacific West Line Extension ....................................... 1,255,978 

MD Central LRT Double-Track ..................................................... 482,822 

NC South Corridor LRT ................................................................ 70,744,065 

NJ Hudson-Bergen MOS–2 .......................................................... 100,000,000 

OH Euclid Corridor Transportation Project ................................. 693,013 

OR Interstate MAX LRT Extension ............................................. 542,940 

PR Tren Urbano ............................................................................ 2,670,518 

WA Central Link Initial Segment ................................................. 80,000,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
76 

The Tren Urbano project in Puerto Rico has been fraught with 

mismanagement, delays and safety issues and the Committee is 

aware of current difficulties in closing out the project. The Committee strongly urges the Commonwealth and the builder to resolve 

the outstanding issues expeditiously, and directs FTA to retain the 

final full funding grant payment until both sides reach a close out 

agreement. The Committee’s recommendation provides $657,600,000 to meet 

the Federal cost share for the following pending and proposed full 

funding grant agreements, authorized by SAFETEA–LU, as proposed in the budget request. Based on information from FTA, these 

projects are in final design and will be ready for a full funding 

grant agreement during the 2007 fiscal year. 

CO West Corridor LRT .................................................................. $35,000,000 

NY Long Island Rail Road East Side Access ............................... 300,000,000 

OR South Corridor I–205/Portland Mall LRT ............................. 80,000,000 

OR Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail .............................. 27,600,000 

PA North Shore LRT Connector ................................................... 55,000,000 

TX Northwest/Southeast LRT/MOS ............................................. 80,000,000 

UT Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail ................. 80,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation provides $300,000,000 for 

projects authorized by SAFETEA–LU which will be in preliminary 

engineering or final design during the 2007 fiscal year. The Committee recommends funds for the following specific authorized 

projects: 

CA ... San Francisco MTA Third Street Light Rail Project ......... $5,000,000 

DC ... WMATA Largo—rail cars .................................................... 61,500,000 

DC ... WMATA Navy Yard—Station Upgrades ............................ 20,000,000 

FL ... Miami Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion ... 1,000,000 

IL .... Metra Commuter Rail—STAR Line, Chicago ..................... 5,000,000 

IL .... Metra Commuter Rail—UP West Line Extension, Chicago.1,250,000 

IL .... Metra Commuter Rail—UP West Line Upgrades, Chicago.2,000,000 

IN .... N. Indiana Commuter Transit District Recapitalization .. 1,000,000 

MA .. Fitchburg-Boston Rail Corridor ........................................... 1,000,000 

MN .. Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, Dakota County ............ 1,000,000 

MN .. Northstar Corridor Rail Project ........................................... 2,000,000 

NJ ... Northern Branch, Bergen County ....................................... 2,000,000 

NJ/ 

PA.

Northwest NJ-Northeast PA Passenger Rail Project ........ 2,000,000 

NY ... Second Avenue Subway, New York City ............................ 4,000,000 

TX ... METRO Solutions Phase 2, Implementation Plan ............ 2,500,000 

VA ... Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project ....................................... 5,000,000 

VA ... Norfolk Light Rail Project .................................................... 2,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation includes a rescission of 

$17,760,000 from this account. Funds for the rescission are to be 

derived from any project which still has not obligated appropriated 

funds after three years. 

The Committee does not provide funds for the new small starts 

program as authorized. First and foremost, the FTA will not complete the program regulations until June 2007, at the earliest. With 

only two or three months of the fiscal year, the Committee places 

a greater priority on providing adequate funds for capital improvement projects that will move into preliminary engineering or final 

design, rather than an untested, new program. Second, the Committee places a greater priority on projects already in the pipeline 

which will have a greater impact on congestion mitigation, environVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
77 

mental quality, and travel time, rather than small, economic development type projects. Should the SAFETEA–LU guarantees not 

have been in place, the Committee would have provided the 

$200,000,000 in other priorities of the bill also funded by the General Fund of the Treasury. Since the Committee must meet certain 

funding levels, the $200,000,000 remains under this heading. 

The Committee is cautiously optimistic about the improved management of the new starts process, and encourages FTA to continue 

with revisions to the process regarding timing and criteria required 

for entry to the preliminary engineering and final design phases. 

The Committee appreciates greatly the monthly updates on advanced projects and directs FTA to continue communicating with 

the Committee on such matters. 

The Committee has reservations on using land use and economic 

development as measures in the new starts rating methodology, 

and reiterates the concern expressed in House Report 108–671 regarding the weight these two measures may carry in determining 

the merits of a project proposal. The Committee encourages the use 

of transit, especially in light of rising fuel costs. In the past, most 

recently in House Report 108–671, the Committee raised concerns 

that locally developed ridership forecasts were optimistic, at best. 

The Committee places priority on ridership and congestion mitigation—especially for under this budget climate. The Committee provides $4,200,000,000 under HUD Community Development Block 

Grants for economic development. Should the highest rating of a 

new start, or especially a small start, come from the economic development or land use rating, the Committee would strongly urge 

that community to instead use local community and economic development funds rather than transit funds which could be used 

more appropriately for congestion mitigation. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

prior year appropriations Acts for the Department of Transportation as follows: 

Bus and Bus Facilities: 

Attleboro Intermodal Center, MA 

(FY 2004) 

Eastern Contra Cost Park and Ride Lots, CA 

(FY 2004) 

Leesburg Train Depot Renovation and Restoration, GA 

(FY 2004) 

Regional Transit Demonstration Project for Quitman, Clay, 

Randolph, and Stewart Counties, GA 

(FY 2004) 

Burbank Empire Area Transit Center, CA 

(FY 2004) 

UNI Multimodal Project, IA 

(FY 2004) 

Indianapolis Downtown Transit Center, IN 

(FY 2002, 2003, 2004) 

Callowhill Bus Garage Replacement, PA 

(FY 2002) 

New Starts: 

Northstar Corridor, MN 

(FY 2003, 2004) 

Dulles Corridor Project, VA 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
78 

(FY 2002) 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ 

and bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ in 

prior year appropriations Acts to be used in this fiscal year. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 

Section 163. The Committee recommends a new provision as proposed in the budget request that allows FTA to provide grants for 

100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus. 

Section 164. The Committee modifies a provision that allows unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ and 

bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ to be used 

in this fiscal year for activities eligible in the year the funds were 

appropriated. 

Section 165. The Committee recommends a new provision which 

clarifies the calculations for determining the net costs of the San 

Gabriel Valley Metro Gold Line transit project. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $16,121,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,425,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,304,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +9,425,000 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by 

the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The corporation is 

responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the 

United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located in 

Massena, New York and vessel traffic control in areas of the St. 

Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the corporation 

is to serve the United States intermodal and international transportation system by improving the operation and maintenance of a 

safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and environmentally responsible 

deep-draft waterway. The corporation’s major priorities include: 

safety, reliability, trade development, management accountability, 

and bi-national collaboration with its Canadian counterpart. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $17,425,000 

to fund the operations and maintenance of the corporation, 

$9,425,000 above the budget request and $1,304,000 above the fisVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
79 

cal year 2006 enacted level. Appropriations from the harbor maintenance trust fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance 

the operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is responsible. Similar to the decision made for fiscal year 

2006, the Committee denies the request to re-establish tolls on the 

U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway in fiscal year 2007. Although legislative language was submitted in a timely fashion, the 

language would only impose tolls for one year and does not sufficiently address the Committee’s questions regarding double taxations. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs, as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United 

States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military 

auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD, working 

with the Department of Defense (DOD), helps provide a seamless, 

time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, 

while balancing the defense and commercial elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also manages the maritime 

security program, the voluntary intermodal sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which assures DOD access to 

commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD’s education and training programs through 

the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six state maritime schools 

help provide skilled U.S. merchant marine officers. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $154,440,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 154,440,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 154,440,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $154,440,000 for the Maritime Security Program (MSP), the same as the budget request and the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will 

continue to administer the program with support and consultation 

of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the national 

security needs of the United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in U.S.-foreign trade. 

Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active 

commercial service and are required to provide intermodal sealift 

support to the Department of Defense in times of war or national 

emergency. The Committee’s recommendation provides funding for 

60 ships, at a payment per ship of $2,574,000, consistent with the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
80 

budget request and the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The recommendation will provide the necessary resources for the operation 

of the MSP through fiscal year 2007. Funds are available until expended. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $128,527,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 115,830,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 116,442,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥12,085,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +612,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $116,442,000 for operations and 

training, $612,000 above the budget request and $12,085,000 below 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Funds provided for this 

account are to be distributed as follows: 

Activity 

(all figures in $000’s) FY07 Request House recommended 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary and Benefits ............................................................................................ $24,009 $24,009 

Midshipmen Program .......................................................................................... 6,977 6,977 

Instructional Program ......................................................................................... 5,689 5,689 

Program Direction and Administration ............................................................... 2,916 2,916 

Maintenance, Repair, & Operating Requirements ............................................. 7,307 7,307 

Capital Improvements ........................................................................................ 14,850 14,850 

Subtotal, USMMA ....................................................................................... 61,747 61,747 

State Maritime Schools: 

Student Incentive Payments ............................................................................... 792 792 

Direct Payments .................................................................................................. 1,188 1,800 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .................................................................. 7,920 7,920 

Subtotal, State Maritime Academies ......................................................... 9,900 10,512 

MARAD Operations: 

Base Operations ................................................................................................. 40,300 40,300 

Information technology, electronic government ................................................. 3,200 3,200 

GSA Space Increase ............................................................................................ 683 683 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations ..................................................................... 44,183 44,183 

Subtotal, Operations and Training ............................................................ 115,830 116,442 

The Committee recommends $61,747,000 for the operation and 

maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), the 

same as the budget request and $511,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of the funds provided, the Committee 

recommends $24,009,000 for salaries and benefits, which is available until September 30, 2007, and $14,850,000 for capital improvements to the USMMA, which is available until expended. The Committee recommends $10,512,000 for the six State Maritime Schools (SMS), $612,000 above the budget request and 

$587,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. These increased funds are provided for cadet training, facilities, and fuel 

costs to result in $300,000 per school in direct payments. Of the 

funds provided, the Committee recommends $7,920,000 for SMS 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
81 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair, which is available until expended. The Committee recommends $44,183,000 for MARAD operations, the same as the budget request and $4,509,000 below the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2006. Within this total, the Committee provides $3,200,000 for IT related activities and electronic government. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $20,790,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 25,740,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,740,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +4,950,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

MARAD serves as the federal government’s disposal agent for 

government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or 

more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose of 

obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense Reserve 

Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration is required by law to 

dispose of its obsolete inventory by the end of 2006; however, 

MARAD has acknowledged that it will not meet this statutory 

deadline. There are currently 124 vessels located in three fleet sites 

in the NDRF awaiting disposal. In fiscal year 2004, MARAD removed 15 ships for disposal and projects that it will remove another 15 in 2005 and 13 in 2006. These vessels pose a significant 

environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous substances 

such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). The list includes a nuclear ship, the SAVANNAH, which 

contains remnants of a nuclear reactor. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,740,000 for ship disposal, the 

same as the budget request and $4,950,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $9,970,000 to decommission the SAVANNAH. 

Funds are available until expended. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,085,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 3,317,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,317,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥768,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The maritime guaranteed loan account as provided for by title XI 

of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for guaranteed loans 

for purchasers of ships from the U.S. shipbuilding industry and for 

modernization of U.S. shipyards. Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are appropriated to this account, 

and then transferred by reimbursement to operations and training 

to be obligated and outlayed. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantee 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
82 

commitments made in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of 

direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or 

commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of 

this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a net present 

value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash 

basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,317,000, the same as the budget 

request and $768,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2006. In addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of 

$2,000,000 from unobligated balances. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... ¥$74,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥74,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥74,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108– 

136) authorized the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction 

Program to provide financial assistance for the construction of five 

privately owned product tank vessels to be available for national 

defense purposes in time of war or national emergency. The purpose of the program is to revitalize commercial tank ship construction in the U.S. The Department of Defense has stated that a critical deficiency exists for U.S. flag tankers capable of carrying multiple petroleum cargoes. Vessels constructed under this program 

will operate as part of the Maritime security fleet. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends rescinding $74,400,000 from unobligated balances, as proposed in the budget request. The Committee 

does not repeal Subtitle D, National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Assistance, of Title XXXV of the Maritime Security Act of 

2003, Public Law 108–136, as proposed in the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and rental payments 

shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

obligations incurred during the current year from construction 

funds in excess of the appropriations contained in this Act or in 

any prior appropriations Act. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), which was established as an administration within the 

Department of Transportation effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs ImVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
83 

provement Act (Public Law 108–246), is responsible for the department’s pipeline safety program and oversight of hazardous materials transportation safety operations. As part of its mission, the 

agency is dedicated to safety by working toward the elimination of 

transportation-related deaths and injuries in hazardous materials 

and pipeline transportation, and by promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the natural environment. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $16,708,230 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 17,721,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,721,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,012,770 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation finances the program support costs for the 

PHMSA. This includes policy development, counsel, budget, financial management, civil rights, management, administration and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $17,721,000 for these costs, of which 

$639,000 is to be provided from the Pipeline Safety Fund. The 

Committee expects PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in its 

budget justification. 

The recommended level includes a reduction of $320,000 from the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level to account for the transfer of two additional positions to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 

Administrative costs for new positions.—Consistent with the new 

positions that have been provided in the Hazardous Materials Safety appropriation, $111,000 is provided for associated administrative 

costs. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $25,876,620 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 27,225,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 27,225,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,348,380 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The PHMSA oversees the safety of the more than 800,000 daily 

shipments of hazardous materials in the United States and uses 

risk management principles and security threat assessments to understand, communicate, and reduce dangers inherent in hazardous 

materials transportation. The agency formulates, issues and revises 

hazardous materials regulations which cover hazardous materials 

definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and 

carrier operations, training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $27,225,000 to continue the agency’s hazardous 

materials safety functions. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
84 

Field Enforcement Inspectors.—The Committee approves four 

new inspectors, as requested, to achieve a more effective level of inspections, address the need to investigate undeclared shipments, 

and improve cross-modal data sharing. This will expand the number of enforcement inspectors in the field from 30 to 34. 

Package Testing.—The Committee approves $225,000 in contract 

funding, as requested, to increase the agency’s capacity to perform 

package testing by 50 percent, ensuring the safety of packages and 

their conformity to performance standards mandated in regulations. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline safety fund) (Oil spill liability 

trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ $57,429,900 $14,850,000 $72,279,900 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. 56,925,000 18,810,000 75,735,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 56,925,000 18,810,000 75,735,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................... ¥504,900 +3,960,000 +3,455,100 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .................................... – – – – – – – – – 

PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage prevention, education and training, enforcement of regulations and standards, research and development, grants for states pipeline safety programs, 

and emergency planning and response to accidents. The pipeline 

safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to 

protect the public against the risks to life and property in the 

transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $75,735,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal 

year 2007. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, 

$18,810,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund 

and $56,925,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund. 

State one-call grants.—The Committee directs that no less than 

$1,000,000 of the funds provided is for the one-call grants program, 

as was directed in fiscal year 2006. 

State pipeline safety grants.—The Committee approves additional 

funding, $500,000 above fiscal year 2006, to assist state pipeline 

agencies to increase inspection and enforcement activities required 

by the Pipeline Safety Integrity Act. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
85 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency preparedness fund) (Emergency preparedness grant program) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ $198,000 ($14,157,000) $14,355,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. 198,000 (28,328,000) 28,526,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 198,000 (28,328,000) 28,526,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................... – – – (+14,171,000) +14,171,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .................................... – – – (– – –) – – – 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (HMTUSA) requires the PHMSA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) 

monitor public sector emergency response training and planning 

and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 

and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $198,000, the same amount as requested, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 

117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $28,328,000 for the emergency preparedness 

grant program. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

was established as an administration within the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement 

Act, Public Law 108–426. The mission of RITA is to provide strategic clarity to DOT’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, 

while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the department. 

RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the following research 

and development programs and activities: advancement and research and development of innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation systems; education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields, including the University 

Transportation Centers and the Transportation Safety Institute; 

and activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center. 

Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which is funded from the Federal Highway Administration’s federal-aid highway account. BTS compiles, analyzes, and 

makes accessible information on the nation’s transportation systems; collects information on intermodal transportation and other 

areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of the 

statistical programs of the DOT through research, the development 

of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
86 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $5,716,260 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,217,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,367,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +650,740 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥1,850,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $6,367,000 to continue research and development activities in fiscal year 2007. This funding level is sufficient 

to fund 33 full time equivalent staff years (FTE), an increase of 5 

FTE over the fiscal year 2006 level. 

Transportation futures program.—The Committee denies RITA’s 

request of $2,228,000 for the transportation futures and applied 

technology program. The Committee believes that RITA should develop a more robust level of in-house research, development and 

technology expertise before it relies on outside contractors for 

multi-modal research coordination and analysis. 

Research Programs.—Within the fiscal year 2007 recommended funding level, the Committee provides $1,120,000 for RITA’s research, development, and technology (RD&T) programs as follows: 

Hazardous materials research and development (R&D) .................... $80,000 

Hydrogen fuels safety R&D .................................................................. 500,000 

RD&T coordination ................................................................................ 540,000 

The Committee recommends that the $1,120,000 provided for 

these RD&T programs is available until September 30, 2009. 

The bill also includes language that allows funds received from 

states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for training to be credited to 

this appropriation. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... ($26,730,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... (27,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (27,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. (+270,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway Administration, 

the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. In addition, BTS will receive 

a portion of the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) increase 

to the federal-aid highway program in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTE in fiscal year 2007 

in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing that occurred 

previously within this agency. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more efVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
87 

fective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to 

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $61,874,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 64,143,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 64,143,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,269,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $64,143,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General, consistent with the budget 

request. The Committee continues to value highly the work of the 

Office of Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs 

and activities. 

In addition, the OIG will receive $7,324,000 from other agencies 

in this bill, as noted below: 

Federal Highway Administration ................................................................... $3,524,000 

Federal Transit Administration ..................................................................... 2,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 1,050,000 

National Transportation Safety Board .......................................................... 500,000 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation ...................................................... 125,000 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration .................................. 125,000 

Funding is sufficient to finance 420 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

staff years in fiscal year 2007, for a decrease of 10 FTE from the 

fiscal year 2006 level. 

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General to 

continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created on January 

1, 1996, by Public Law 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). The ICCTA abolished 

the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain other provisions to the STB; and transferred certain motor carrier functions 

to the Federal Highway Administration (now under the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
88 

The STB is a three-member, bipartisan, independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT that is specifically 

responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and 

certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. The STB’s regulatory oversight of rail carriers encompasses 

the regulation of rates, mergers and acquisitions, construction, and 

abandonment of railroad lines, as well as the planning, analysis 

and policy development associated with these activities. The STB’s 

jurisdiction also includes certain regulation of the intercity bus industry and surface pipeline carriers as well as the rate regulation 

of water transportation in the non-contiguous domestic trade, 

household-good carriers, and collectively determined motor rates. 

The law empowers the STB through its exemption authority to 

promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis and 

continues intact the important rail reforms made by the Staggers 

Rail Act of 1980. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $26,185,500 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 22,925,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 ................................................................. 25,618,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥567,500 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +2,693,000 1 Assumes collection of $1,250,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected 

throughout the fiscal year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $25,618,000, an increase of $2,693,000 above the budget request. Included in the 

recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate 150 full-time equivalent staff years. 

The Committee’s recommendation funds the following increases 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level: 

Annualization of fiscal year 2006 pay raise .................................................. +$113,000 

Fiscal year 2007 pay raise .............................................................................. +340,000 

GSA rent and security increases .................................................................... +1,849,000 

Inflation ............................................................................................................ +51,000 

Annualized salary increase for fiscal year 2006 hires and employee benefits increases ................................................................................................. +882,000 

Working capital fund and telephone/utilities increases ............................... +21,000 

Fiscal year 2007 relocation expenses (one-time) ........................................... +375,000 

Post move costs ................................................................................................ +274,000 

Environmental travel increase ....................................................................... +15,000 

These increases are offset by a reduction of $4,500,000 for the 

one-time relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2006. As noted 

above, the Committee has provided one-time funding of $375,000 to 

accommodate the final stages of STB’s office relocation. 

User fees.—Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee 

believes that $1,250,000 in user fees is reasonable. Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and 

credited. The Committee continues this language to simplify the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
89 

tracking of the collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds. 

STB case report.—The Committee is aware of frustration over 

rail service and freight rail charges among rail customers, including electric utilities, rural electric cooperatives, paper companies, 

agricultural industries and local units of government. The Committee recognizes that the four major railroads now control more 

than 94% of the industry’s revenues and 90% of the rail track and 

that there are fewer options for shippers that rely on the nation’s 

major railroads for service. The Committee directs the STB to issue 

a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

February 1, 2007, that shows the number of complaints that have 

been filed related to high rail charges and poor service since January 2005, the STB’s determinations in these cases, and the status 

and timing of decisions in any pending cases. 

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.—On December 12, 1997, 

the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, KS (Wichita/ 

Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study pending in Finance 

Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated that at such time as the 

parties reach agreement or discontinue negotiations, the Board 

would take appropriate action. 

By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of the 

Board’s approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8, 

1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a condition 

to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the 

Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the 

Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate. 

Waste transfer and sorting facilities.—The Committee recognizes 

that a growing number of certain waste haulers and rail companies 

have sought to exploit a potential loophole in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act in order to construct and operate unregulated waste transfer and sorting facilities on railroad 

properties. The developers of these types of facilities are claiming 

that ICCTA grants federal preemption from local, state and certain 

federal regulations that protect the public interest with respect to 

solid waste. The Committee disagrees with this interpretation of 

ICCTA preemption since the operation of solid waste facilities is 

not integral to transportation by rail. The Committee encourages 

the STB to clarify that these types of facilities are indeed subject 

to the same local, state, and federal laws and regulations as other 

solid waste facilities. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
90 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, United 

State Code. 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources for expenses incurred for training may be credited 

to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for any grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 

days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 

funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced 

by the department or its modal administrations. 

Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

Section 189. The Committee amends slightly a provision continued for years allowing amounts from improper payments to a third 

party contractor or contractor support that are lawfully recovered 

by the Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred in the recovery of such payments. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
91 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $194,626,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 223,874,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 223,786,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +29,160,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥88,000 

The Departmental Offices’ function in the Treasury Department 

is to provide basic support to the Secretary of the Treasury, the 

chief operating executive of the Department. The Secretary also 

has a primary role in formulating and managing the domestic and 

international tax and financial policies of the Federal Government. 

The Secretary’s responsibilities funded by the Salaries and Expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing 

United States domestic and international economic and tax policy; 

fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of the Government; 

maintaining foreign assets control; managing the public debt; managing development of financial policy; representing the United 

States on international monetary, trade and investment issues; 

overseeing Treasury Department overseas operations; directing the 

administrative operations of the Treasury Department; and providing executive oversight of the bureaus within the Treasury Department. This account also includes funding for the office of professional responsibility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $223,786,000 for Departmental Of- fices, Salaries and Expenses, $88,000 below the budget request and 

$29,160,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 

funding recommendations are made based on information included 

in the budget justification. Therefore, the transfer authority provided to the Department under this heading is set at 3 percent. 

Funds are to be allocated as follows: 

Executive Direction ............................................................................ $8,760,000 

General Counsel ................................................................................. 8,741,000 

Economic Polices and Programs ........................................................ 41,947,000 

Financial Policies and Programs ....................................................... 27,086,000 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence ............................................... 45,401,000 

Treasury-Wide Management Policies and Programs ....................... 18,534,000 

Administration Programs .................................................................. 73,317,000 

The Committee includes in its recommendation $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies; $5,114,000 for the Treasury-wide Financial 

Statement Audit and Internal Control program, which is available 

until September 30, 2008; $3,000,000 for information technology 

modernization requirements, which is available until September 

30, 2008; and $100,000 for official reception and representation expenses. Of the funds provided for Financial Policies and Programs, 

the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the e-Cavern partnership and $750,000 for two-factor authentication technology. The 

Committee does not approve the request of $1,838,000 for TreasVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
92 

ury-wide performance management training due to poor justification. 

THE OFFICE OF TERRORISM AND FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE

The Committee recommends $45,401,000 for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Of the amount provided, 

$1,759,000 is for the Office of the Undersecretary, $4,404,000 is for 

the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, 

$24,263,000 is for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and 

$14,975,000 is for the Office of Intelligence Analysis. 

OVERSEAS PRESENCE

Of the funds provided for Economic Policies and Programs, the Committee recommends $11,232,689 for the overseas attache ́ pro- gram, the same as the budget request and $9,352,000 above the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The increase in funding will 

allow the Department to expand its overseas presence in critical 

posts to 19 attache ́s. 

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Of the funds provided for Financial Policies and Programs, the Committee recommends $513,000 for the Office of Dynamic Analysis, the same as the budget request. This is the first year the Department has requested funding for this activity. The Committee is 

pleased that the Department is seeking to better understand the 

full range of behavioral responses to changes in the tax code, and 

has fully funded this office, providing half-year funding for six full 

time equivalents (FTEs). 

REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENTS

Of the funds provided for Administration Programs, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to re-establish a recurring baseline 

for major repairs and improvements for the main Treasury and 

Annex buildings. This funding is moved from the Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration (T–BARR) project, which 

will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006. No funding is requested for T–BARR in fiscal year 2007. 

SECURITY DETAIL

Of the funds provided for Administration Programs, the Committee recommends $4,200,000 to reimburse the United States Secret Service for the costs associated with the security detail provided to the Secretary. The Committee understands that this 

amount is sufficient to cover all Secret Service charges related to 

this protection for fiscal year 2007. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Committee is concerned by the recent events surrounding 

the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States 

(CFIUS). As chair of the CFIUS, the Treasury Department maintains an active leadership role in the approval of foreign direct investment in the U.S. In the case of the acquisition of operations at 

terminals in several U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a United 

Arab Emirates owned company, the Committee finds it disVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
93 

concerting that there was no communication between CFIUS and 

the Congress, especially considering the security of the Nation’s 

critical infrastructure. The Committee understands that the Department has initiated several reforms, such as notifying Congress 

of every review upon its completion, formalizing the role of the Director of National Intelligence in the investigative process, and offering quarterly Congressional briefings. The Committee commends 

the Department on these initiatives and directs the Department to 

continue to work to improve the communication between the 

CFIUS and the Congress. 

CURRENCY MANIPULATION

The Committee remains concerned about the manipulation of the 

value of foreign currency. This practice can have a devastating effect on U.S. companies who are forced to compete with lower priced 

imports and unfair tariffs when exporting to the countries in question. This action is also leading to the record trade deficit this nation has experienced, which topped $800 billion in 2005. The Committee understands the tools the Department uses to deal with 

these countries, both those that knowingly support and practice 

currency manipulation and those who find their currency undervalued through no nefarious action of their own. Those tools include pressure from the International Monetary Fund and World 

Trade Organization, as well as bilateral negotiations authorized 

under title 22 of the United States Code. These tools, however, are 

slow processes which take time while Americans continue to lose 

jobs. Those situations in which countries intentionally devalue 

their currency to gain a trade advantage or do not do enough to 

correct an undervalued currency should be addressed immediately 

and swiftly by the Department. The Committee is encouraged by 

the recent inclusion of the appendix in the semi-annual Report to 

Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies, to 

better clarify the indicators that the Department uses to define currency manipulation. However, much work remains to be done. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to provide quarterly updates on the status of negotiations with countries with undervalued currency and the impacts of the country’s currency valuation on the U.S. The Committee understands that change will not 

be immediate; however, the Committee expects to see notable 

progress in these quarterly updates. 

OPERATING PLAN

The Committee directs the Department, upon enactment of the 

fiscal year 2007 appropriations Act, to submit an operating plan for 

the fiscal year 2007 resources provided to the Department, including all offices and bureaus, not more than 60 days after enactment. 

The operating plan must include funding and FTE levels for all offices and objectives by fiscal year 2006 actual, fiscal year 2007 request, and fiscal year 2007 enacted. In addition, the plan must include information on any initiative, major procurement, and program at the Department. The operating plan should incorporate 

input from all senior level managers of the Department, and once 

submitted, the final plan should be made available to those managers. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
94 

TRAVEL CAP

The Committee has not included a travel limitation, which was 

$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2006. The Committee remains concerned 

about the amount of politically motivated travel, but understands 

that continuing to restrict the travel of all Treasury offices and bureaus may negatively impact mission operations. The Committee 

will continue to monitor travel and re-evaluate this position at the 

next appropriate time. Therefore, the Committee restates the travel 

report directives contained in House Report 108–792 and directs 

the Department to include the purpose of the reported travel in the 

quarterly report. The Committee also continues the direction that 

the Secretary shall ensure that a portion of travel funds are made 

available to General Schedule employees to support the training 

and development of all Departmental Office employees. 

MONTHLY OBLIGATION REPORTING

The Committee directs the Department to submit a monthly 

budget execution report that includes: the total appropriated obligation authority (new budget authority plus unobligated carryover), 

current year obligations, unobligated balance, beginning obligated 

balance, current year outlays, and ending obligated balance. This 

budget execution information is to be provided for all the unexpired 

accounts of the Department’s appropriations that are shown in the 

tables displayed at the end of this report as well as the Working 

Capital Fund. This report must be submitted to the Committee no 

later than 45 days after the close of each month. 

CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee has noticed a significant improvement in the fiscal year 2007 Congressional Justification and Budget-in-Brief, and 

appreciates the effort to reduce redundant information and provide 

clearer, more concise documentation in the budget request. Notwithstanding these improvements, the Department is encouraged 

to continue efforts in the substance of the request. The Committee 

would like to see efforts to identify low priority programs for reduction or elimination in order to fund higher priority critical needs. 

The Committee also recognizes the Department on its efforts to revise its annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). As 

with the previous year’s revision of the Budget-in-Brief, the PAR 

is now a clear, concise, and usable document. This was evident in 

a recent independent evaluation of agency PARs where the Department moved from 16th place last year to fifth place this year. The 

Department should continue to show transparency in its operations 

to the public by including baseline and trend data, effectively listing program goals in terms of desired outcomes and providing explanations for missed goals. Finally, the Committee encourages the 

Department to continue its efforts to revise its strategic plan. A retooled strategic plan should link funding directly to outcomes. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
95 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $24,168,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 34,032,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 34,032,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +9,864,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs appropriation funds the modernization of Treasury business 

processes and increases in Department-wide systems efficiency 

through technology investments for systems that involve more than 

one Treasury bureau or Treasury’s interface with other governmental agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $34,032,000 for Department-wide 

Systems and Capital Investment Programs, the same as the budget 

request and $9,864,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2006. Funds are available until September 30, 2009. Of the amount 

recommended, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for various 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence information technology (IT) 

investments. Should the additional resources for this initiative be 

required, the Committee directs the Department to utilize up to 

$3,000,000 from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s track record 

in executing major IT projects. While there are a few notable successes, such as those at the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, too often major projects 

are hampered by poor performance and cost and schedule overruns. 

For example, HR Connect, TCE, BSA Direct, and BSM all experienced major setbacks during their development. The Committee is 

encouraged by the steps taken by the Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) to rectify these problems, but is concerned that 

the CIO lacks sufficient authority to properly manage IT projects 

across the Department. For instance, the Department has taken almost two years just to put in place clear policies and procedures 

for bureaus CIOs to follow when managing a major IT project. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide a report 

no later than March 1, 2007, detailing the plans to provide the CIO 

proper authority and resources to adequately manage the entire 

Department’s IT infrastructure, including Treasury-wide capital 

planning and information management, cyber security, E-Government initiatives, HR Connect, and telecommunications management. 

In addition, last year the Committee directed in House Report 

109–153 that the Department provide more detailed information 

regarding all IT initiatives and investments, development and implementation timelines, and costs and savings in the Department’s 

operating plan. This information, however, was not included in the 

fiscal year 2006 operating plan. Therefore, the Committee, again, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
96 

directs the Department to include this information in their next operating plan. 

TREASURY FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE NETWORK

Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $21,200,000 

for the Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network (TFIN), the same as 

the budget request and $15,260,000 above the amounts provided in 

fiscal year 2006. The Committee understands that this amount will 

fully fund the modernization of TFIN, an intelligence system critical in the fight against terrorist financing. However, fully funding 

TFIN has left little funding for other critical IT projects. Therefore, 

the Committee expects the Department to better allocate its IT 

funding among critical systems in the future. 

ENTERPRISE CONTENT MANAGEMENT

Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $627,000 for 

the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Enterprise Content 

Management (ECM), the same as the budget request. The Committee finds it unacceptable that OFAC must manually process 

more than 40,000 requests each year. An automated document and 

records management system would allow OFAC to more effectively 

manage and search its records when responding to and processing 

licenses, undoubtedly saving time and resources. The Committee, 

therefore, directs the Department to provide a report, no later than 

March 1, 2007, on the benefits of, and plans for, a fully operational 

ECM system. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $16,830,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 17,352,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,352,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +522,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit and 

investigative functions to identify and correct operational and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit 

function provides program, contract, and financial statement audit 

services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Program audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial statements fairly present the agency’s financial condition and results of 

operations, the adequacy of accounting controls, and compliance 

with laws and regulations. The investigative function provides for 

the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,352,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request and $522,000 above 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
97 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The bill includes 

$2,000,000 for official travel expenses, $2,500 for official reception 

and representation expenses, and up to $100,000 for unforeseen 

emergencies. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $131,953,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 136,469,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 136,469,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +4,516,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform 

Act of 1998 established the Office of Treasury Inspector General for 

Tax Administration (TIGTA) and abolished the IRS Office of the 

Chief Inspector. TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to assess the operations and programs of the IRS and its related entities, the IRS Oversight Board, and the Office of Chief 

Counsel. The purpose of those audits and investigations is as follows: (1) promote the economic, efficient, and effective administration of the nation’s tax laws and to detect and deter fraud and 

abuse in IRS programs and operations; and (2) recommend actions 

to resolve fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $136,469,000 for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the same as the budget request and $4,516,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 

2006. 

AIR TRANSPORTATION STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,723,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥2,723,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) was authorized in the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act to issue 

$10,000,000,000 of federal credit instruments to air carriers. The 

statute requires the compensation of air carriers ‘‘for losses incurred by the air carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the 

United States that occurred on September 11, 2001,’’ and provides 

among other criteria, that ‘‘such agreement is a necessary part of 

maintaining a safe, efficient, and viable commercial aviation system in the United States.’’ 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no appropriation for the Air Transportation Stabilization Program. The Committee understands that 

the ATSB will be able to negotiate payment or remarketing of its 

remaining loans by the end of fiscal year 2006, thereby meeting the 

requirements established under the Air Transportation Safety and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
98 

System Stabilization Act (Public Law 107–42). Consequently, the 

ATSB will terminate its activities in fiscal year 2007. The Committee includes language that permits the ATSB to charge fees to 

a borrower for the costs associated with bankruptcy proceedings of 

the borrower, should any loans remain with the Department and 

the borrower enter bankruptcy. 

TREASURY BUILDING AND ANNEX REPAIR AND RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $9,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥9,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration appropriation funds the repairs, selected improvements, and construction 

necessary to renovate and maintain the main Treasury Building, 

the Treasury annex, and other Treasury buildings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no appropriation for Treasury 

Building and Annex Repair and Restoration (T–BARR). The Committee understands that the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2006 

are sufficient to complete the restoration. Furthermore, the Committee agrees to transfer $1,000,000 of the T–BARR base amount 

to Departmental Operations, Salaries and Expenses, to re-establish 

a recurring baseline for other major repairs and improvements. 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $72,894,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 89,794,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 84,066,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +11,172,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥5,728,000 

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for implementing Treasury’s anti-money laundering regulations through administration of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 

section 5311, et seq. (BSA). It also serves as a U.S. Government 

source for the systematic collection and analysis of information to 

assist in the investigation of money laundering and other financial 

crimes. FinCEN supports law enforcement investigative efforts by 

Federal, state, local and international agencies, and fosters interagency and global cooperation against domestic and international 

financial crimes. It also provides U.S. policymakers with strategic 

analyses of domestic and worldwide trends and patterns. It prevents money laundering through its regulatory and outreach programs, including setting policy for and overseeing BSA compliance 

by financial institutions, and by providing BSA training for law enforcement, bankers, and bank regulators. Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, FinCEN was made a Treasury Bureau in recognition of its key role in supporting investigations and other GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
99 

ernment efforts to identify and stop the financing of terrorist organizations and activity. The USA PATRIOT Act also gave FinCEN 

substantial new responsibilities for collecting, sharing, and managing financial and other information as part of its counter-terrorism mission. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $84,066,000 for the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network, $5,728,000 below the budget request 

and $11,172,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 

Of the amounts provided, $8,651,000 is available until September 

30, 2008, for regulatory support programs, and $14,012,000 is 

available until September 30, 2009, for information technology and 

special analytical initiatives. 

BSA DIRECT

Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $13,365,490 

for BSA Direct, $5,728,000 below the budget request and 

$6,745,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 

Committee is concerned about the future of BSA Direct, a system 

designed to improve the sharing of information reported under the 

Bank Secrecy Act. A recent stop work order on BSA Direct’s retrieval and sharing component contract has highlighted multiple 

cost, schedule, and performance problems during development. This 

break in development has left many unanswered questions as to 

the future of the system, especially the retrieval and sharing component. Because of this delay, the assumptions used when compiling the fiscal year 2007 budget request, which included 

$12,473,000 above the fiscal year 2006 base amount, may no longer 

be valid. Therefore, the Committee recommends a reduction of 

$5,728,000 to the budget request, $728,000 for the retrieval and 

sharing component of the $2,473,000 requested base increase, and 

$5,000,000 for the cross-border wire transfer system initiative. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $233,881,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 233,654,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 233,654,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥227,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Financial Management Service (FMS) is responsible for the 

management of Federal finances and the collection of Federal debt. 

As the Federal Government’s central financial agent, FMS receives 

and disburses public monies, maintains Government accounts, and 

reports on the status of the Government’s finances. FMS is also accountable for developing and implementing the most reliable and 

efficient financial methods and systems to operate the Government’s cash management, credit management, and debt collection 

programs. Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 

1996, FMS became the primary agency for collecting Federal nontax debt that is due and owed to the Government and coordinating 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
100 

efforts to collect debt from those who have defaulted on agreements 

with the Federal Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $233,654,000 for the Financial Management Service, the same as the budget request and $227,000 

below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $9,220,000 for information systems modernization initiatives, which is available until September 

30, 2009, and $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $90,215,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 63,964,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 92,604,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,389,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +28,640,000 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is responsible for the enforcement of laws designed to eliminate certain illicit activities and to regulate lawful activities relating to distilled 

spirits, beer, wine and nonbeverage alcohol products, and tobacco. 

TTB focuses on collecting revenue; reducing taxpayer burden and 

improving service while preventing diversion; and protecting the 

public and preventing consumer deception in certain regulated 

commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $92,604,000 for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, $28,640,000 above the budget request 

and $2,389,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 

The budget request assumed $28,640,000 in revenue from new user 

fees. However, the fees have not been authorized by the Congress 

and therefore cannot be used to offset appropriations. In addition, 

the bill includes up to $6,000 for official reception and representation expenses and up to $50,000 for cooperative research and development programs. 

UNITED STATES MINT

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

The United States Mint manufactures coins, receives deposits of 

gold and silver bullion, and safeguards the Federal Government’s 

holdings of monetary metals. In 1997, Congress established the 

United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund (Public Law 104–52), 

which authorized the Mint to use proceeds from the sale of coins 

to finance the costs of its operations and consolidated all existing 

Mint accounts into a single fund. Public Law 104–52 also provided 

that, in certain situations, the levels of capital investments for circulating coins and protective services shall factor into the decisions 

of the Congress such that those levels compete with other requirements for funding. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
101 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a spending level for capital investments by the Mint for circulating coinage and protective services 

of $30,200,000, the same as the budget request and $3,432,000 

above the fiscal year 2006 spending level. The following table provides basic information on the revenues, costs, and products of the 

Mint for fiscal years 2005 through 2007: 

Circulating coins Commemorative 

quarters Numismatic coins Protection 

2005 (actual): 

Number of coins ......................... 11.4 billion 2.7 billion 20 million 

Cost of operations ...................... $164 million $322 million $493 million $35 million 

Revenue ...................................... $481 million $664 million $626 million 

2006 (est.): 

Number of coins ......................... 12.5 billion 3.0 billion 24 million 

Cost of operations ...................... $181 million $386 million $1,282 million $37 million 

Revenue ...................................... $530 million $757 million $1,381 million 

2007 (est.): 

Number of coins ......................... 12.6 billion 3.1 billion 24 million 

Cost of operations ...................... $182 million $390 million $1,321 million $36 million 

Revenue ...................................... $536 million $779 million $1,431 million 

PRODUCTION COSTS

The Committee is concerned with the rising costs of producing all 

varieties of circulating coins. While the Mint continues to use their 

existing metal inventory, costs to produce the cent and five-cent 

coins remain relatively low. Currently, the year-to-date cost of producing a cent is slightly above face value, while a nickel is slightly 

below face value. A recent report, however, estimates that producing cents and nickels using metal purchased at today’s prevailing prices would cost 1.4 cents and 6.4 cents, respectively. Inevitably metal inventories will have to be replenished at current 

prices. Therefore, the Committee directs the Government Accountability Office to report, no later than March 1, 2007, on any studies 

the Mint has made of alternative metals or alloys to be used for 

the production of circulating coins to keep production costs down. 

This report shall be delivered no later than March 1, 2007, to the 

Committees on Appropriations and Financial Services. 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $178,154,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 180,789,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 180,789,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,635,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Bureau of the Public Debt is responsible for the conduct of 

all public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. securities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $180,789,000 for Administering the 

Public Debt, the same as the budget request and $2,635,000 above 

the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. Of this amount, the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
102 

mittee recommends $2,500 for official reception and representation 

expenses, and $2,000,000 for systems modernization, which is 

available until September 30, 2009. Language is included that reduces the total amount by no more than $3,000,000 as definitive 

security issue fees and Treasury Direct Investor Account Maintenance fees are collected. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $54,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 7,821,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 40,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥14,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +32,179,000 

The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) 

Fund provides grants, loans, and technical assistance to new and 

existing community development financial institutions such as community development banks, community development credit unions, 

revolving loan funds, and micro-loan funds. Recipients must use 

the funds to support mortgage, small business and economic development lending in underserved and distressed neighborhoods. The 

Fund is also responsible for implementation of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the CDFI program, 

$32,179,000 above the budget request and $14,450,000 below the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The Committee does not 

agree to move the CDFI grant programs to the Department of Commerce as a part of the ‘‘Strengthening America’s Communities’’ program, leaving only the administration of the New Markets Tax 

Credit program and the outstanding award portfolio under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. The Committee recommends the entire program remain at the Treasury. Of the funds 

provided, $12,800,000 is for administrative costs of the program. 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve notes, various public debt instruments, as well as most evidences of a financial character issued 

by the U.S., such as postage and internal revenue stamps. The 

BEP also executes certain printings for various territories administered by the U.S., particularly postage and revenue stamps. 

The operations of the BEP are financed by a revolving fund established in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 81–656, 

August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies for the costs of all manufacturing 

products and services performed. The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital equipment and provide for working 

capital needs. The anticipated work volume is based on estimates 

of requirements submitted by agencies served. The following table 

summarizes BEP revenue and expense data for fiscal years 2005 

through 2007: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
103 

[All figures in $000’s] 

Fiscal year 

2005 (actual) 2006 (estimate) 

2007 (estimate) 

Total revenue .......................................................................................................... $512,000 $506,000 $556,000 

Revenue from currency .................................................................................. 476,800 500,000 550,000 

Revenue from stamps .................................................................................... 17,300 0 0 

Other revenue ................................................................................................. 17,900 6,000 6,000 

Cost of operations .................................................................................................. 531,000 506,000 556,000 

Net revenue 1 (to Treasury) ..................................................................................... (19,000) 0 0 

1 Capital investments will be less than depreciation, a non-cash expense, in each of these years. In order to avoid accumulating working 

capital in excess of Bureau needs, currency prices are set at a level that will result in an annual loss (on paper). This loss will not exceed 

the depreciation expense, ensuring the solvency of the Bureau’s revolving fund. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,095,212,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 4,045,122,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥4,095,212,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥4,045,122,000 

The Processing, Assistance, and Management appropriation provides for processing tax returns and related documents; processing 

data for compiling statistics of income; assisting taxpayers in correct filing of their returns and in paying taxes that are due; overall 

planning and direction of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and 

management of financial resources and procurement. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s recommendation does not follow the previous 

IRS account structure. Instead, the Committee recommends a new 

appropriation structure that more closely aligns with taxpayer 

services, enforcement, and operations support. The Committee expects the IRS to use this new structure as the basis for the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. 

TAXPAYER SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $2,059,151,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,059,151,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +2,059,151,000 

The Taxpayer Services appropriation provides for taxpayer services, including forms and publications; processing tax returns and 

related documents; filing and account services; taxpayer advocacy 

services; and assisting taxpayers to understand their tax obligations, correctly file their returns, and pay taxes due in a timely 

manner. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,059,151,000 for Taxpayer Services. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $8,000,000 

for low-income taxpayer clinic grants and $4,100,000 for the Tax 

Counseling for the Elderly Program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
104 

NEW AND INCREASED USER FEES

The Committee is concerned about the budget request assumption of $135,000,000 in new and increased user fees. The budget request assumes the funds collected from these fees will supplement 

the Taxpayer Services ($117,398,000) and Operations Support 

($17,602,000) appropriations. The budget request also assumes 

timely changes to IRS legacy systems, which are necessary for the 

collection of these fees. The Committee is concerned that the necessary changes to IRS legacy systems will not happen in a timely 

fashion and also questions the willingness of taxpayers to pay increased fees for voluntary services. Therefore, the Committee directs the IRS to report quarterly on the collection of user fees, including an update of the status of the legacy system changes needed to collect these fees. 

TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE CENTERS

In fiscal year 2006, the Committee included a provision requiring 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to 

study the impact on taxpayer compliance and service before the 

IRS could proceed with a reduction in the number of Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TACs). TIGTA’s report (Reference Number 2006– 

40–061) stated that although the methodology used by the IRS to 

determine which TACs to close was appropriate, not all of the data 

used were current or accurate. TIGTA found that these data discrepancies made it impossible to determine if the IRS selected the 

correct TACs for closure, or if the IRS overselected or underselected 

the number of TACs that needed to be closed to reach their targeted savings. The Committee understands that the IRS agreed 

with the TIGTA findings and will ensure that the data used to determine future TAC closures are accurate and verified. Therefore, 

the Committee does not continue the provision requiring TIGTA to 

review any reductions to taxpayer services, but does direct the IRS 

to provide the Committee 30 days advance notice to the selection 

or announcement of any TAC closure decisions. 

DISABILITY CLAIMS

The Committee is disappointed that the IRS has not yet issued 

the report, as directed in House Report 109–153, on the number of 

disabled veterans who have been denied back taxes due to the 

three year IRS statute of limitations. The Committee continues to 

be concerned that disabled military retirees whose successful Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claims take more than three years to 

be resolved are unable to receive the back tax they are owed for 

more than three years due to the IRS statute of limitations. The 

Committee directs the Department to work with the VA to identify, 

within 30 days of the publication of this report, what is needed in 

order to share information between the agencies to determine the 

number of veterans affected by this problem. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
105 

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,678,498,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 4,762,327,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥4,678,498,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥4,762,327,000 

The Tax Law Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination of tax returns, both domestic and international; the administrative and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination 

findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status; examining tax returns of exempt organizations; enforcing statutes relating to detection and investigation of criminal violations of 

the internal revenue laws; collecting unpaid accounts; compiling 

statistics of income and compliance research; securing unfiled tax 

returns and payments; and expanding efforts to reduce overclaims 

and erroneous filings associated with the earned income tax credit. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s recommendation does not follow the previous 

IRS account structure. Instead, the Committee recommends a new 

appropriation structure that more closely aligns with taxpayer 

services, enforcement, and operations support. The Committee expects the IRS to use this new structure as the basis for the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. 

ENFORCEMENT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $4,757,126,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +4,757,126,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +4,757,126,000 

The Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination of 

tax returns, both domestic and international; the administrative 

and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status; 

examining tax returns of exempt organizations; enforcing statutes 

relating to detection and investigation of criminal violations of the 

internal revenue laws; identifying under reporting of tax obligations; securing unfiled tax returns; and collecting unpaid accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,757,126,000 for Enforcement. Of 

the funds provided, the Committee recommends $55,112,000 to 

support IRS activities under the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program and allows up to $10,447,000 to be transferred 

to Operations Support for the purposes of the Interagency Crime 

and Drug Enforcement program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
106 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,582,977,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,602,232,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥1,582,977,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥1,602,232,000 

The Information Systems appropriation provides for service-wide 

data processing support, including the evaluation, development, 

and implementation of computer systems (including software and 

hardware) requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s recommendation does not follow the previous 

IRS account structure. Instead, the Committee recommends a new 

appropriation structure that more closely aligns with taxpayer 

services, enforcement, and operations support. The Committee expects the IRS to use this new structure as the basis for the fiscal 

year 2008 budget request. 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $3,438,404,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +3,438,404,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +3,438,404,000 

The Operations Support appropriation provides for overall planning and direction of the IRS, including shared service support related to facilities services, rent payments, printing, postage, and security; other support functions that are considered overhead but essential to the successful operation of IRS programs including resources for headquarters management activities, including IRSwide support for strategic planning, communications and liaison, finance, human resources, EEO and diversity; research and statistics 

of income; and necessary expenses for information systems and 

telecommunication support, including developmental information 

systems and operational information systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,438,404,000 for Operations Support. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends 

$1,112,818,000 for Shared Services and Support, of which not to exceed $1,500,000 is for the IRS Oversight Board, $25,000 is for official reception and representation expenses, and $1,000,000 is available until September 30, 2009, for research; $878,135,000 for Physical Infrastructure; and $1,447,451,000 for Information Services 

and Improvement Programs, of which $75,000,000 is available until 

September 30, 2008, to facilitate information technology purchases 

as requested by IRS. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Committee remains concerned with the management of information technology (IT) projects. While progress has been made 

with the Business Systems Modernization (BSM) program, the IRS 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
107 

must not neglect the non-BSM projects. Mid-filing season failure of 

critical non-BSM systems should not and must not happen. Therefore, the Committee directs the IRS to review all critical systems 

and report to the Committee by October 31, 2006, on any system 

troubles that could impact the upcoming 2007 filing season, including corrective actions. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $197,010,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 167,310,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 212,310,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +15,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +45,000,000 

The Business Systems Modernization appropriation provides 

funding for IT contractors to modernize key business systems of the 

Internal Revenue Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $212,310,000 for Business Systems 

Modernization (BSM), $45,000,000 above the budget request and 

$15,300,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. The 

budget request included $45,000,000 for management and development of the BSM program requested in the Information Services 

appropriation. The Committee recommendation moves the funds for 

these salaries and expenses to the BSM appropriation for total cost 

visibility of the BSM program. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends no less than $167,310,000 to remain available 

until September 30, 2009, for capital asset acquisition of information technology systems. Consistent with previous years, the release of the capital asset acquisition funding is subject to the approval of a GAO reviewed expenditure plan. The Department is directed to notify the Committee, within seven days, if BSM management funds are reallocated to the capital asset acquisition program. 

REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

BSM has made significant progress in its seven year history. 

Early on the program experienced multiple cost overruns and 

schedule delays. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reports in GAO–06–310, this was due in part to inadequate development and management of requirements. Recognizing this, the 

IRS created the Requirements Management Office (RMO) in October 2004. However, the Committee is concerned that a year and a 

half later there remains no finalized policies and procedures for requirements development and management. The Committee agrees 

with the GAO recommendations contained in GAO–06–310, including immediately implementing the current draft policies while the 

final policies and procedures are developed; standardizing the process for eliciting and documenting requirements; establishing a process for formal peer reviews; establishing guidance on tracking cost 

and schedule impacts of changes to requirements; and establishing 

guidance on full bidirectional requirements traceability. The Committee, therefore, directs the IRS to address these recommendations immediately. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
108 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $20,008,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 14,846,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 14,846,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥5,162,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration appropriation 

provides contractor support to develop and administer the advance 

payment option for the health insurance tax credit included in Public Law 107–210, the Trade Act of 2002. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $14,846,000 for Health Insurance 

Tax Credit Administration, the same as the budget request and 

$5,162,000 below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Section 201. The Committee modifies a provision that allows for 

the transfer of five percent (three percent in the case of Enforcement) of any appropriation made available to the IRS to any other 

IRS appropriation. 

Section 202. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the IRS to maintain a training program in taxpayer rights, dealing 

courteously with taxpayers, and cross-cultural relations. 

Section 203. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the IRS to institute policies and procedures that will safeguard the 

confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204. The Committee continues a provision that makes 

funds available for improved facilities and increased manpower to 

provide efficient and effective 800 number help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 205. The Committee modifies a provision that directs 

$166,249,000 to be available for the Taxpayer Advocate Service; 

$166,101,000 from Taxpayer Services and $148,000 from Operations Support. 

Section 206. The Committee includes a provision that prohibits 

the use of funds to develop or provide free individual tax electronic 

preparation and filing products or services, other than the Free 

File program and the IRS’s Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax 

Counseling for the Elderly, and volunteer income tax assistance 

programs. This provision also prohibits the use of funds to develop 

or implement direct interactive electronic individual income tax 

preparation or filing services or products, or a return-free system 

as described in section 2004 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The Committee understands 

this will not impact any current IRS taxpayer programs or services. 

Section 207. The Committee includes a provision that designates 

taxpayer service and tax law enforcement programs for fiscal year 

2007 and thereafter as made up of Taxpayer Services, Enforcement, and Operations Support appropriations. 

Section 208. The Committee includes a provision that allows for 

the transfer of up to 20 percent between the Taxpayer Services, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
109 

Enforcement, and Operations Support accounts to implement the 

restructuring of the IRS accounts, following a 30 day notification 

of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 209. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds, made available in this Act to be used to enter into, renew, 

extend, administer, implement, enforce, or provide oversight of any 

qualified tax collection contract. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Section 210. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Department of the Treasury to purchase uniforms, insurance, 

and motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price 

limitations, and enter into contracts with the State Department for 

health and medical services for Treasury employees in overseas locations. 

Section 211. The Committee continues a provision that authorizes transfers, up to two percent, between ‘‘Departmental Offices— 

Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of the Inspector General’’, ‘‘Financial Management Service’’, ‘‘Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau’’, ‘‘Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’’, and the ‘‘Bureau of the Public Debt’’ appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 212. The Committee continues a provision that authorizes transfer, up to two percent, between the Internal Revenue 

Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

under certain circumstances. 

Section 213. The Committee continues a provision limiting funds 

for the purchase of law enforcement vehicles unless the purchase 

is consistent with vehicle management principles. 

Section 214. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

the Department of the Treasury from undertaking a redesign of the 

one dollar Federal Reserve note. 

Section 215. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

for transfers from and reimbursements to ‘‘Financial management 

service, salaries and expenses’’ for the purposes of debt collection. 

Section 216. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

pay demonstration program. 

Section 217. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

Congressional approval for the construction and operation of a museum by the Mint. 

Section 218. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used to merge the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without the approval of the House 

and Senate committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 219. The Committee includes a new provision providing 

a technical correction to 31 U.S.C. 3333(a)(3), clarifying that the 

Check Forgery Insurance Fund is the appropriate funding source 

for disbursing errors for which relief has been granted under 31 

U.S.C. 3527. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
110 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $15,808,219,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 15,920,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,776,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥31,819,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥143,600,000 

In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was separated 

into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and 

Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise known as 

the Housing Choice Voucher program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,776,400,000 for tenant-based 

rental assistance, a decrease of $31,819,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and $487,342,000 above the amount enacted in 

the prior year for the renewal of tenant-based Section 8 vouchers. 

The Committee notes that this comparison includes the one-time 

emergency supplemental appropriation of $390,300,000 in response 

to the 2005 hurricanes in the Gulf Coast region. Absent these 

emergency funds, the Committee’s recommended funding level is 

$358,781,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. Consistent 

with the budget request, the Committee continues the advance of 

$4,200,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading for 

Section 8 programs to October 1, 2007. The entire advance is limited to this account. 

Voucher Renewals.—The Committee is providing 

$14,436,200,000, the same as requested and a 3.5 percent increase 

in funds compared to fiscal year 2006 for the renewal of tenantbased vouchers. This increase is more than rents have increased 

and will allow for continued funding stability in the program for 

fiscal year 2007. There is continued evidence to suggest that, nation-wide, subsidies for rental assistance have begun to level off 

and in some cases decline relative to their 2004 levels. The Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends in Section 8 subsidy and to report on the extent to which changes in subsidy are due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income. 

The transition back to a ‘‘budget based’’ system of funding was 

completed in fiscal year 2006. However, the Committee recognizes 

that a fully ‘‘budget based’’ system leaves the Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with a single fixed amount for the calendar year 

and with the difficult task of maximizing the renewal of vouchers 

while operating under a complex regime of rules and requirements 

that do nothing to facilitate the process. Absent real reforms to the 

program to reduce costs and dramatic changes to the program’s implementation guidelines to reduce the administrative burden, the 

Committee directs the Department to take whatever regulatory 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
111 

and administrative actions it can to increase flexibility, reduce administrative burden and streamline program implementation. By 

January 1, 2007, the Committee directs the Department to provide 

a full report on the regulatory and administrative available to the 

Department and those it has implemented. However, absent real 

programmatic and statutory reform these actions at best only function as stop gap measures. 

The Committee continues the direction to the Department to 

communicate to each PHA, within 45 days of enactment, the fixed 

amount that will be made available to each PHA for calendar year 

2007. The amount being provided in this account is the only source 

of Federal funds that may be used to renew tenant-based vouchers. 

The amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any 

other source. 

The Committee agrees to the budget request that a portion of the 

contract renewal funds may be used for additional rental subsidy 

due to exigencies as determined by the Secretary and for the onetime funding of housing assistance payments resulting from the 

portability provisions of the housing choice voucher program. The 

Committee directs that housing assistance payments resulting from 

the portability provisions be the first priority in the use of these 

funds. 

Tenant protection.—The Committee provides $149,300,000 for 

tenant protection vouchers, $28,900,000 less than enacted for 2006 

and the same as the budget request. As a result of the variable nature of this activity from year to year, language is included allowing the Department to use carryover and recaptures of unexpended 

Section 8 balances to fund additional rental assistance costs in addition to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These additional 

rental assistance costs are limited to housing assistance payments 

and administrative fees not to exceed the rate of administrative 

fees provided for contract renewals. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,137,500,000 for allocation to the PHAs to conduct activities associated with placing and maintaining individuals under Section 8 

assistance. This amount is $100,000,000 below the enacted level for 

2006 and $143,600,000 below the levels proposed in the budget request. 

Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators (FSS).—The Committee includes $47,500,000 for FSS coordinators, the same amount as requested by the Administration and $20,000 less than the level enacted for 2006. Coordinators help residents link up with important 

services in the community to speed the achievement of self-sufficiency. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee provides the requested 

amount of $5,900,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund 

(WCF). 

The Committee directs the Department to continue to collect and 

use Form HUD–52681 for PHAs administering the Housing Choice 

Voucher program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
112 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................. ¥$2,050,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................... ¥2,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... ¥2,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .......................................... +50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ........................................ – – – 

The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005, provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the Section 8 program. Project-based Rental Assistance and Tenant-based Rental Assistance are now separately funded accounts. 

The Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ 

appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $2,000,000,000 from 

unobligated balances and carryover remaining in the Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-based and project-based 

rental assistance programs as proposed in the budget request. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,438,964,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 2,178,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,178,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥260,964,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 

housing capital programs, including public housing development 

and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total funding level of 

$2,178,000,000, a decrease of $260,964,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. Within the 

amounts provided the committee directs that: 

—$19,800,000 is made available for Emergency Capital 

needs; the Committee continues last year’s language to ensure 

that funds are used only for repairs needed due to an unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural disaster 

that occurs during fiscal year 2007 and 2008; 

—$23,760,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and 

Supportive Services, as proposed in the request; 

—No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center; 

—$10,890,000 is for Technical Assistance. The Department is 

expected to cover the costs of the fair market rents (FMR) surveys from funds remaining available in this account; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
113 

—$7,920,000 is directed to the support of administrative and 

judicial receiverships, as requested; and 

—Up to $14,850,000 for transfer to the Working Capital 

Fund to support the development of and modifications to, information technology systems which support Public and Indian 

Housing (PIH) programs. This reflects the Committee’s continued concern that investments must be made to correct deficiencies in PIH information technology systems to improve 

PIH’s ability to conduct appropriate financial and management 

oversight of its programs. 

As requested, the recommendation does not designate a separate 

set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds. 

The Department is directed to continue to provide the quarterly 

detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with obligation rates of less than 90 percent. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $3,564,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 3,564,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,564,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This subsidy 

supplements funding received by public housing authorities (PHA) 

from tenant rent contributions and other income. In accordance 

with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula to public housing authorities for 

the following purposes: utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of providing adequate security; routine 

maintenance cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,564,000,000 for the Federal 

share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is the same as both 

the amount enacted for fiscal year 2006 and the budget request. As 

requested, $9,900,000 may be used for the ‘‘Housing Self-Sufficiency Award’’ and $5,940,000 is for the Asset-Based Management 

Transition Fund. This fund will provide technical assistance to 

PHAs as they complete the transition to asset-based management. 

In 2001, Congress funded and mandated that the Department establish the costs of operating a well run Public Housing Authority. 

This report to the Congress, which became known as the Harvard 

Study, made several important recommendations to reform the current allocation formula to better align the allocation with the actual costs. Congress, in fiscal year 2005 mandated that HUD and 

the public housing industry negotiate a new regulation to implement the Harvard Study. This lengthy process was finally completed with the publishing of the final rule on September 19, 2005 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
114 

and the subsequent final rule correction published in the Federal 

Register on October 24, 2005. 

Language is included that requires funds be allocated to the 

PHAs in accordance with the corrected final rule as set forth in the 

‘‘Revisions to the Public Housing Operating Fund Program; Correction to Formula Implementation Date’’ as published in the Federal 

Register. 

The committee also continues a provision, carried in prior years, 

prohibiting funds from being used for section 9(k) activities. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING

(HOPE VI) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $99,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... ¥99,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥99,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +99,000,000 

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods adversely 

impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public housing 

projects. In addition to developing and constructing new affordable 

housing, the program provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not provide funds for the HOPE VI program 

in fiscal year 2007. The budget did not request funds for this program. Language proposed by the Administration to rescind funds 

appropriated for fiscal year 2006 is not included. 

The Committee recognizes that this program has had a varied 

and controversial history. On the one hand, the projects that have 

been completed have been successful and demonstrate what the 

program could accomplish. On the other hand, the funding history 

overwhelmingly demonstrates that far too many projects have not 

been completed in a timely way. Many projects funded years ago 

have yet to start. Currently over $2 billion in undispersed obligations from prior years remain in a backlog and have been unused 

for years. Furthermore, resistance to the program from tenants remains strong, further delaying many projects. 

Most importantly, the Committee is convinced that, although 10 

years have been an important demonstration period, the per-unit 

cost of the program is too high, relative to alternatives, to be sustained over the long-run. 

Therefore, the Committee believes that the best course of action 

is to reject the proposal to rescind the fiscal year 2006 funding 

making those funds available in fiscal year 2007 for grant awards, 

but until a new authorization is enacted by Congress to revise and 

reform the program, no further funding is merited. The Committee 

directs the Department to submit a report to the Committees on 

Appropriations reviewing the status of the backlog of projects and 

funds to include an analysis of which projects should remain in the 

pipeline and which projects should be cancelled. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
115 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $623,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 625,680,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 625,680,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,980,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 

funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) to address housing needs within their communities. 

The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating requirements 

and capital needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $625,680,000 for the Native American Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block 

Grant Fund. This is the same as the budget request and $1,980,000 

more than the enacted amount in fiscal year 2006. 

In 2003 when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data HUD 

shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula distribution 

of funds from single-race to multi-race. The Committee continues 

language from last year instructing HUD to distribute funds on the 

basis of single race or multi race data which ever is the higher 

amount for each recipient. 

Of the amounts made available under this heading: 

—$1,980,000 is included for Section 601 loan guarantees to 

guarantee $14,938,825 in new loans. However, the Department 

is advised that loan level activity must be monitored to ensure 

that sufficient grant funds are available as collateral for new 

loans; 

—$3,465,000 is for Technical Assistance training and associated travel; 

—$148,500 is transferred to the Department Salary and Expenses account; and 

—$990,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council to conduct training and technical assistance. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $8,727,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 5,940,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,815,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +88,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +2,875,000 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing related assistance to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low income Native 

Hawaiian families. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
116 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,815,000 for this program, 

$88,150 more than the amount provided in fiscal year 2006, and 

$2,875,000 above the budget request. Of the amounts provided, 

$299,211 is for technical assistance. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $3,960,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... 5,940,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ 3,960,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥1,980,000 

Limitation on direct Loans:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $116,276,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... 251,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ 116,276,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥134,724,000 

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 

to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 

access to sources of private financing for Indian families and Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire financing 

because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new homes or to purchase 

existing properties on reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,960,000 in new credit subsidy for 

the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $1,980,000 below the 

budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

This will be sufficient to guarantee $116,276,000 in new loans. The 

Committee strongly supports the program of loan guarantees for 

the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of single-family homes 

on trust or restricted lands. However, the Department has indicated that $5,962,000 in previously provided credit subsidy will 

carry over into fiscal year 2007. Hence in total, more resources will 

be available in fiscal year 2007 than in fiscal year 2006. Of the 

amounts made available, $247,500 is transferred to Salary and Expenses. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
117 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $891,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... 1,010,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ 1,010,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +119,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

Limitation on direct Loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $35,714,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... 43,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ 43,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +7,286,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 

provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their 

families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations experienced 

in the planning and in the development of affordable housing for 

Native Hawaiians for the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to private sources of financing that would 

otherwise not be available because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,010,000 for this program the same as requested to guarantee a total loan volume of $43,000,000, 

the full amount requested. Language is included transferring 

$35,000 to Salaries and Expenses for administrative expenses. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $286,110,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 300,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 300,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +13,990,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their 

families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by formula to 

qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported to the Centers for 

Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of funding is distributed 

through a national competition. Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
118 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $300,100,000, 

an increase of $13,990,000 over the enacted levels for fiscal year 

2006, and the same as the budget request. Within the total amount 

provided, $1,485,000 is for technical assistance, training and oversight as requested and $1,485,000 is transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund. With the funds provided, the Department should 

continue to give priority to creating new housing opportunities for 

persons with AIDS. 

The Committee continues language which requires the Secretary 

to renew expiring permanent supportive housing contracts previously funded under the national competition, which meet all program requirements, before awarding new competitive grants. 

RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $16,830,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥16,830,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This account provides funding to rural non-profit organizations, 

community development corporations, Indian tribes, State housing 

finance agencies, State economic development and Federally recognized community development agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee agrees with the budget proposal to provide no 

new funds for this program. The majority of initiatives in rural economic transformation are and should be funded through the Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has the expertise in rural 

economic development, rural housing and community stabilization. 

In addition, the activities of this program are eligible activities 

under the HOME and Community Development Block Grant programs. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................... $15,677,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ..................................................... 3,032,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................. 4,200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ ¥11,477,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .............................................. +1,168,000,000 

The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 

and local governments, and to other entities that carry out community and economic development activities under various programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,200,000,000 for the 

Community Development Fund account, a decrease of 

$11,477,800,000 from the amount provided in fiscal year 2006 and 

an increase of $1,168,000,000 to the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
119 

Of the amounts made available: 

—$3,872,580,000 is for the formula grants and the state 

share. HUD is instructed to use the same methodology as used 

in fiscal year 2006 to distribute these funds; 

—$57,420,000 is for the Native American Housing and Economic Development Block Grant; 

—$250,000,000 is for economic development initiative activities and $20,000,000 is for neighborhood initiative activities. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2007, Economic Development Initiative 

and Neighborhood Initiative funds awarded to grantees are to be 

matched by 40 percent in funding by each grantee. 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic Development Initiative program as follows: 

1. $250,000 to the Salvation Army Family Enrichment Center in 

Anchorage, Alaska for construction of a facility. 

2. $500,000 to the City of Gadsden, Alabama for development 

and construction of Noccalula Park. 

3. $440,000 to the University of Montevallo in Montevallo, Alabama for renovation and restoration of buildings. 

4. $250,000 to the City of Robertsdale, Alabama for renovations 

to the PZK Civic Center. 

5. $250,000 to the City of Phenix City, Alabama for redevelopment of the downtown riverfront. 

6. $150,000 to the Huntsville Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama for facility construction, expansion, renovation, and build out, 

as part of the redevelopment of downtown Huntsville. 

7. $150,000 to the Helen Keller Birthplace Foundation in 

Tuscumbia, Alabama for facility renovation and build out. 

8. $100,000 to the City of Birmingham, Alabama for industrial 

park development. 

9. $60,000 to Homeplace in Marshall County, Alabama for the 

renovation of transitional housing. 

10. $50,000 to the City of Lineville, Alabama for the renovation 

of a theater for community purposes. 

11. $50,000 to Calhoun County, Alabama for the construction of 

the White Plains Youth Sports Complex. 

12. $250,000 to the Clarke County Commission in Clarke County, 

Alabama for the development of an industrial park. 

13. $250,000 to Troy University in Troy, Alabama for the establishment of a Center for International Business and Economic Development. 

14. $350,000 to Jefferson County, Alabama for land acquisition 

and construction of the Red Mountain Greenway and Recreation 

Area. 

15. $250,000 to the City of Graysville, Alabama for the Downtown Revitalization Project. 

16. $150,000 to the City of Northport, Alabama for streetscape 

improvements. 

17. $300,000 to Arkansas State University, in Mountain Home, 

Arkansas for construction, renovation, and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

18. $250,000 to the Peace at Home Family Shelter in Fayetteville, Arkansas for the construction of transitional housing. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
120 

19. $100,000 to the City of Malvern, Arkansas for planning and 

design and construction of recreational facilities, and park improvements. 

20. $100,000 to the Conway County Economic Development Corporation, Arkansas for renovation and build out of a historic building. 

21. $775,000 to Chicanos Por La Causa in Phoenix, Arizona for 

land and facility acquisition, planning and design, construction, 

renovation and build out of facilities. 

22. $400,000 to the Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona in Sierra Vista, Arizona for the build out and expansion of 

a domestic violence center. 

23. $250,000 to the City of Scottsdale, Arizona for renovations to 

the Vista del Camino Community Center. 

24. $250,000 to the City of Globe, Arizona for streetscape improvements. 

25. $250,000 to the City of Miami, Arizona for acquisition and 

renovation to affordable housing units. 

26. $100,000 to The Dunbar Coalition in Tucson, Arizona for 

planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of a 

youth cultural center. 

27. $500,000 to the Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center in 

Livermore, California for capitalization of a loan fund. 

28. $300,000 to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc., 

California for capitalization of loan funds for a homebuyer assistance program. 

29. $100,000 to the City of Livermore, California for capitalization of a housing loan fund. 

30. $150,000 to San Diego County, California for planning and 

design, construction, renovation and build out of facilities at Camp 

Lockett. 

31. $80,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of San Bernardino, California for renovation and build out of the Delman Heights Community Center. 

32. $1,000,000 to the City and County of San Francisco, California for demolition of structures, planning and design, and construction of new housing. 

33. $550,000 to City College of San Francisco, California for planning and design, construction and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

34. $500,000 to the City of Banning, California for renovations to 

the city-owned pool. 

35. $500,000 to the City of Desert Hot Springs, California for infrastructure improvements to a new community center. 

36. $500,000 to the City of Yucaupa, California for the design 

and construction of a multipurpose athletic facility at Crafton Hills 

College. 

37. $500,000 to the Japanese Community Youth Council, San 

Francisco, California for construction, renovation and build out of 

a community center. 

38. $400,000 to the City of Oroville, California for the construction and development of Memorial Park. 

39. $400,000 to El Dorado County, California for infrastructure 

improvements to the Rubicon Trail. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
121 

40. $350,000 to the City of Highland, California for the restoration of the First Bank of Highland building for use as a museum. 41. $300,000 to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, California for construction, expansion, renovation, and build out of a 

multipurpose facility. 42. $250,000 to the California Lutheran University in Ventura, 

California for the renovation and build out of the biomedical institute. 

43. $250,000 to the East County Family YMCA in San Diego, 

California for the construction of the McGrath Family YMCA in 

East County San Diego. 44. $250,000 to San Mateo County Human Services Agency, California for acquisition, renovation and build out of affordable housing. 45. $250,000 to the Diamond Bar High School in Diamond Bar, 

California for renovations to the Diamond Bar High School Community Sports Field. 46. $250,000 to the County of Fresno, California for the construction of a vocational training facility in Mendota, California. 47. $250,000 to the City of Huntington Beach, California for the 

planning and construction of a senior center. 48. $200,000 to the Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services, 

California for construction and build out of a multipurpose facility. 49. $150,000 to the City of Santa Maria, California for construction, renovation, and build out of a library. 50. $150,000 to the San Diego Housing Commission, San Diego, 

California for construction, renovation, and build out of affordable 

housing units. 51. $150,000 to the Wattstar Theatre and Education Center, in 

the Los Angeles Federal Empowerment Zone, California for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 52. $150,000 to the City of La Puente, California for planning 

and design and construction of a nature education center for children. 

53. $150,000 to the Jewish Home for the Aging in Reseda, California for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

54. $150,000 to the City of Woodland, California for planning and 

design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

55. $150,000 to US Vets, in Inglewood, California for renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

56. $150,000 to the Western States Black Research and Educational Center, California for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

57. $100,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California for improvements to MacArthur Park. 

58. $100,000 to the Stanislaus Ag Center Foundation, in Modesto, California for planning and design and construction of a 

science center. 

59. $100,000 to the Grand Vision Foundation in San Pedro, California for renovation and build out of a historic building. 

60. $100,000 to the Allen Temple Housing & Economic Development Corp. in Oakland, California for renovation and build out of 

transitional housing. 

61. $100,000 to the Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose, 

California for facility construction, renovation, and build out. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
122 

62. $100,000 to The Brewery Site, in Watts, California for planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of housing, 

and industrial park development. 

63. $100,000 to the Fashion District Business Improvement District, in Los Angeles, California for signage and streetscape improvements. 

64. $100,000 to the City of Artesia, California for planning and 

design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

65. $100,000 to the Community Action Partnership of Orange 

County, California for planning and design and construction of a 

multipurpose facility. 

66. $100,000 to East San Gabriel Valley Japanese Community 

Center, California for renovation and build out of a multipurpose 

facility. 

67. $100,000 to Marin County, California for planning and design 

and construction of a community center. 

68. $100,000 to the Sonoma County Council on Aging Services, 

California for construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

69. $75,000 to the Asian Youth Center of San Gabriel, California 

for construction, expansion, renovation, and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

70. $50,000 to the Southeast Rio Vista YMCA, in Los Angeles 

County, California for renovation and build out of facilities. 

71. $650,000 to the City of Redding, California for the development of the Stillwater Business Park. 

72. $250,000 to the City of Los Angeles, California for Valley 

Plaza area revitalization and streetscape improvements. 

73. $100,000 to the City of Agoura Hills, California for land acquisition and park improvements. 

74. $300,000 to the Santa Cruz, California Redevelopment Agency for building renovation and build out, and streetscape improvements. 

75. $150,000 to the Baldwin Hills Regional Conservation Authority, California for park improvements. 

76. $100,000 to the City of Alameda, California for streetscape 

improvements. 

77. $400,000 to the Denver Rescue Mission Harvest Farm in Wellington, Colorado for facility construction and build out. 

78. $350,000 to North Range Behavioral Health in Greeley, Colorado for facility construction. 

79. $200,000 to the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy 

District, Colorado for planning and design, construction, renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

80. $100,000 to the Denver Rescue Mission, in Denver, Colorado 

for construction, renovation, and build out of a transitional shelter. 

81. $100,000 to the Archuleta Housing Corporation, Colorado for 

construction, renovation, and build out of housing units. 

82. $100,000 to the City of Pueblo, Colorado for construction, renovation, and build out of recreational facilities, park improvements, 

and streetscape improvements. 

83. $100,000 to the National Sports Center of the Disabled 

(NSCD), Colorado for planning and design, construction, renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
123 

84. $50,000 to the San Luis Valley Development Resources 

Group, Colorado for renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

85. $500,000 to the Town of Willington, Connecticut for the expansion of low income senior housing. 86. $500,000 to the YMCA of Vernon, Connecticut for the construction of a new facility. 87. $300,000 to the Central Connecticut Coast Young Men’s 

Christian Association in New Haven, Connecticut for planning and 

design and construction of a community recreational facility on the 

Central Connecticut Shoreline. 

88. $300,000 to the University of Hartford, Connecticut for renovation and build out of a historic building. 89. $300,000 to the Charles D. Smith Foundation in Bridgeport, 

Connecticut for the construction of mixed-income housing in 

Bridgeport, Connecticut. 90. $100,000 to the City of Ansonia, Connecticut for the demolition of blighted housing. 91. $100,000 to Farnum Neighborhood House in New Haven, 

Connecticut for renovation and build out of facilities serving lowincome children. 

92. $100,000 to the Chamberlain Heights Public Housing Development in Meriden, Connecticut for the construction of Head Start 

and Community Resource Centers in the Chamberlain Heights 

public housing development. 93. $100,000 to the Town of Plymouth, Connecticut for the Waterwheel Park Project. 94. $100,000 to Interlude, Inc. in Danbury, Connecticut for renovation of a current facility in Danbury. 95. $100,000 to the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for an environmental assessment planning study. 96. $100,000 to the Factory H Demolition and Remediation 

Project in Meriden, Connecticut for the demolition and remediation 

of Factory H. 

97. $100,000 to the Simsbury Public Library in Simsbury, Connecticut for the renovation and build out of facilities. 

98. $100,000 to the Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts in 

Hartford, Connecticut for renovation and build out of a nonprofit 

community arts center, and streetscape improvements. 

99. $100,000 to the Environmental Learning Centers of Connecticut in Bristol, Connecticut for planning and design and construction of an educational facility. 

100. $100,000 to the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for the removal of blighted structures. 

101. $100,000 to the Capitol Area Food Bank in Washington, District of Columbia for planning and design and construction of a new 

facility. 

102. $100,000 to the City of Bartow Community Redevelopment 

Agency in Bartow, Florida for the planning of a parking facility. 

103. $500,000 to Santa Rosa County, Florida for the construction 

of a YMCA in Navarre, Florida. 

104. $400,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for renovations to the historic Jordan School. 

105. $250,000 to Miami-Dade College in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida for the construction of a library. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
124 

106. $250,000 to Collier County, Florida for the design and construction of a community center. 

107. $250,000 to Edison and Ford Winter Estates in Fort Myers, 

Florida for the historic preservation of the Edison and Ford Winter 

Estates. 

108. $250,000 to Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, 

Florida for facility renovations for the School of Nursing. 

109. $250,000 to the City of Bartow Community Redevelopment 

Agency in Bartow, Florida for the construction of a parking facility. 

110. $250,000 to the City of Marathon, Florida for construction 

of a facility. 

111. $250,000 to the Central Florida Community College in 

Ocala, Florida for renovations to the Fine Arts Auditorium. 

112. $250,000 to the City of Madeira Beach, Florida for the replacement of John’s Pass Boardwalk. 

113. $200,000 to Florida A & M, Miami Dade College, Florida for 

renovation and build out of facilities. 

114. $200,000 to the Holocaust Documentation and Education 

Center in Hollywood, Florida for facility renovation and build out. 

115. $150,000 to the Community Resource Center, in Jacksonville, Florida for renovation, build out, and redevelopment of an 

abandoned strip mall into a multipurpose facility. 

116. $100,000 to the City of St. Petersburg, Florida for renovation and build out of a historic school building. 

117. $100,000 to the Centro Mater Foundation in Hialeah, Florida for the construction of a facility. 

118. $100,000 to the City of Tamarac, Florida for construction, 

expansion, renovation, and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

119. $100,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida for the renovation of the Treasure Island Beach Trail. 

120. $200,000 to the City of West Palm Beach, Florida for planning and design, and construction of the West Palm Beach Black 

Heritage Trail. 

121. $100,000 to the Oglethorpe County Commission in 

Oglethorpe County, Georgia for planning a reservoir. 

122. $400,000 to the Berrien County Development Authority in 

Berrien County, Georgia for the design and construction of a multipurpose community building in downtown Nashville, Georgia. 

123. $400,000 to the Tubman Museum in Macon, Georgia for construction and build out of a new building. 

124. $300,000 to the Augusta, Georgia Brownfield Commission 

for industrial park development. 

125. $150,000 to the Coastal Heritage Society in Savannah, Georgia for revitalization and repair of facilities. 

126. $150,000 to the City of Riverdale, Georgia for planning and 

design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

127. $100,000 to the City of Cuthbert, Georgia for acquisition, 

construction, renovation and build out of recreational facilities. 

128. $100,000 to the City of Plains, Georgia for planning and design and construction of a visitors center. 

129. $100,000 to the SOWEGA Council on Aging, Georgia for 

planning and design and construction of a senior center. 

130. $100,000 to Georgia State University for construction and 

build out of a university science park. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
125 

131. $100,000 to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens, Georgia for facility construction, renovation and build out of educational facilities. 

132. $100,000 to DeKalb County, Georgia for planning and design and construction of recreation centers. 133. $250,000 to the Berrien County Development Authority in 

Enigma, Georgia for the expansion of a sewer system that will 

serve an industrial park. 134. $250,000 to America’s 2nd Harvest of Coastal, Georgia for 

the purchase of two warehouse facilities. 135. $350,000 to the City of Valdosta, Georgia for streetscape improvements and the development of off-street parking. 136. $150,000 to Gwinnett County, Georgia for streetscape improvements in the Hill Area of Duluth, Georgia. 137. $150,000 to the Government of Guam for planning and design and construction of restroom area facilities and visitors centers. 

138. $100,000 to the Waipahu Community Association, in 

Waipahu, Hawaii for land acquisition, construction, and renovation 

for the Waipahu Festival Marketplace. 139. $100,000 to the Young Women’s Christian Association in 

Laniakea, Hawaii for facility renovation and build out. 140. $1,000,000 to the City of Humboldt, Iowa for the demolition 

of four former fertilizer plants. 141. $450,000 to the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the demolition 

of a structure. 

142. $300,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for land acquisition, demolition, remediation and site preparation, relating to the 

Riverpoint West Project. 143. $300,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for land acquisition, demolition, site preparation, and industrial park development. 144. $250,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Magic Valley in 

Twin Falls, Idaho for the construction of a facility in Buhl, Idaho. 145. $400,000 to the City of Rexburg, Idaho for streetscape improvements, pedestrian and wheelchair access along the river, and 

construction of recreational facilities. 

146. $1,500,000 to the City of Chicago, Illinois for renovation and 

build out of a historic building in the Chicago Park District. 

147. $500,000 to the Central Illinois Regional Museum in Peoria, 

Illinois for the planning, design, and construction of the Central Illinois Regional Museum. 

148. $500,000 to the Glen Oak Zoo in Peoria, Illinois for the construction of the Africa Exhibit. 

149. $400,000 to Wings Program, Inc., in Cook County, Illinois 

for facility construction, renovation, and build out. 

150. $400,000 to the Village of Atkinson, Illinois for the Downtown Reconstruction Project. 

151. $400,000 to the City of North Chicago, Illinois for the Sheridan Crossing Project. 

152. $300,000 to the Rialto Square Theater in Joliet, Illinois for 

building renovations. 

153. $250,000 to Home Sweet Home Ministries in Bloomington, 

Illinois for facility expansion and renovation. 

154. $250,000 to Illinois College in Jacksonville, Illinois for the 

renovation of Whipple Hall. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
126 

155. $250,000 to the PeoriaNEXT Innovation Center in Peoria, 

Illinois for the construction of a bioscience and small business incubator. 

156. $250,000 to the St. Elmo, Illinois Historical Society in St. 

Elmo, Illinois for converting a theater into a community center. 157. $250,000 to the Lawrenceville Mid American Airport in 

Lawrenceville, Illinois for the construction and rehabilitation of a 

community center at the Lawrenceville Mid American Airport. 158. $250,000 to the City of Greenville, Illinois for the construction of a business incubator. 

159. $150,000 to the Institute of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture, 

in Chicago, Illinois for construction, renovation and build out of a 

facility. 160. $150,000 to the Village of Riverdale, Illinois for construction, renovation and build out of affordable housing. 161. $150,000 to the Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois for planning and design and construction of a new community center. 162. $150,000 to ETA Creative Arts Foundation, Inc. in Chicago, 

Illinois for planning and design, construction, renovation and build 

out of a multipurpose facility. 163. $100,000 to the Quinn Chapel in Chicago, Illinois for renovation and build out of a historic building. 164. $100,000 to Saint Richard Parish, Illinois for construction, 

renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 165. $100,000 to the Black Ensemble Theater in Chicago, Illinois 

for planning and design and construction of a new multipurpose facility. 166. $300,000 to the Village of Sauget, Illinois for industrial park 

development. 167. $250,000 to the Stephenson County Board in Freeport, Illinois for development of the Mill Race Crossing Industrial Park. 168. $250,000 to the Northfield Park District in the Village of 

Northfield, Illinois for infrastructure improvements at Willow Park. 169. $500,000 to the City of South Bend, Indiana for the construction of an advanced research and business creation complex. 

170. $500,000 to the City of Terre Haute, Indiana for the construction and development of a business incubator. 

171. $250,000 to Memorial Coliseum Redevelopment in Marion, 

Indiana for renovations to Memorial Coliseum. 

172. $250,000 to the City of Portland, Indiana for the construction of a park. 

173. $250,000 to the Town of Highland, Indiana for trail improvements and streetscape improvements. 

174. $100,000 to Madison Center in South Bend, Indiana for the 

planning of a new patient education center. 

175. $100,000 to the Cass County Council on Aging in Logansport, Indiana for facility renovation and build out of a building in 

Logansport, Indiana. 

176. $100,000 to the YMCA in Kokomo, Indiana for building repair and rehabilitation. 

177. $500,000 to the Columbus Enterprise Development Center 

in Columbus, Indiana for the planning and construction of the Columbus Enterprise Development Center. 

178. $250,000 to the City of Valparaiso, Indiana for streetscape 

improvements. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
127 

179. $100,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for revitalization and streetscape improvements. 

180. $440,000 to World Class Technical Education and Training 

Center in Sedgwick County, Kansas for construction of a technical 

education and training center. 

181. $250,000 to Youthville in Dodge City, Kansas for the construction of a facility on the Dodge City campus. 

182. $150,000 to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County 

and Kansas City, Kansas for streetscape improvements and construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities in 

downtown Kansas City. 

183. $1,000,000 to Whitley County, Kentucky for the expansion 

of the City of Williamsburg water and sewer line infrastructure. 

184. $600,000 to the New Zion Community Foundation in Louisville, Kentucky for the construction and renovation of a multi-purpose facility. 

185. $600,000 to Gilda’s Club in Louisville, Kentucky for building 

renovations. 

186. $500,000 to Wayside Christian Mission in Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of a facility. 

187. $500,000 to Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky for facility renovations. 

188. $400,000 to Henry County Fiscal Court in Henry County, 

Kentucky for the construction and development of an industrial 

park. 

189. $300,000 to Jewish Hospital and St. Mary’s Foundation in 

Louisville, Kentucky for construction of facilities. 

190. $250,000 to LaRue County Fiscal Court in Hodgenville, Kentucky for infrastructure renovations and build out of a museum. 

191. $250,000 to WKU Small Business Accelerator in Bowling 

Green, Kentucky for the construction and build out of a small business accelerator. 

192. $250,000 to the Heartland Commerce and Technology Park 

in Campbellsville, Kentucky for construction and build out of the 

Heartland Commerce and Technology Park. 

193. $250,000 to Central Kentucky Agriculture and Exposition 

Center in Casey County, Kentucky for renovation and build out of 

the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Exposition Center. 

194. $100,000 to Metcalfe County and the City of Edmonton, 

Kentucky for construction and renovation of a multi-county facility 

located on the Cumberland Parkway in Metcalfe County. 

195. $50,000 to the City of Edmonton, Kentucky for the construction of facility at Edmonton Memorial Park. 

196. $100,000 to the Mercer County, Kentucky Industrial Development Authority for industrial park development. 

197. $300,000 to the Port of South Louisiana for construction and 

build out of a multipurpose facility. 

198. $250,000 to Ascension Parish, Louisiana for the purchase of 

the Lamar Dixon Expo Center. 

199. $250,000 to the City of Bogalusa, Louisiana for the construction of a facility. 

200. $250,000 to the National Center for Community Renewal in 

Shreveport, Louisiana for facility renovations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
128 

201. $200,000 to St. Bernard Port, Harbor, and Terminal District, Louisiana for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 202. $150,000 to the City of Donaldsonville, Louisiana for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility, and 

streetscape improvements. 203. $70,000 to the Village of Loreauville, Louisiana for 

streetscape improvements. 204. $100,000 to Massachusetts’ Cultural Coast for renovation 

and build out of facilities, in support of a tourism initiative. 205. $75,000 to the Town of Watertown, Massachusetts for an 

economic development planning study. 206. $400,000 to the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts for 

building demolition and clean-up at an abandoned industrial site. 207. $325,000 to CHC Family Center in Gardner, Massachusetts 

for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 208. $325,000 to the Treehouse Foundation in Easthampton, 

Massachusetts for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility to serve children in foster care. 209. $325,000 to the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts for construction, expansion, renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 210. $275,000 to Mount Wachusett Community College in Fitchburg, Massachusetts for planning and design and construction of 

multipurpose facilities. 211. $275,000 to the Amherst Center for Stage and Screen, Inc. 

in Massachusetts for acquisition, renovation and build out of a 

multipurpose facility, as part of area redevelopment. 212. $250,000 to the Town of Boylston, Massachusetts for renovation and build out of a historic building. 213. $250,000 to Barrington Stage Company in Pittsfield, Massachusetts for renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities, as 

part of area redevelopment. 214. $200,000 to the Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc., 

in Malden, Massachusetts for renovation and build out of facilities. 

215. $175,000 to Lesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts for 

facility construction, renovation, and build out. 

216. $175,000 to the Town of Holbrook, Massachusetts for construction, renovation and build out of a public library. 

217. $175,000 to the City of Lynn, Massachusetts for planning 

and design, construction, renovation and build out of a recreational 

facility. 

218. $150,000 to the Forsyth Institute in Boston, Massachusetts 

for construction and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

219. $150,000 to the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Center in 

Methuen, Massachusetts for planning and design and construction 

of a multipurpose facility. 

220. $150,000 to the Urban League of Springfield, Massachusetts, Inc. for construction, renovation, and build out activities at 

a residential summer camp. 

221. $100,000 to Year Up in Boston, Massachusetts for construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

222. $100,000 to the United Teen Equality Center (UTEC) in 

Lowell, Massachusetts for renovation and build out of a youth center. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
129 

223. $100,000 to the City of Northampton, Massachusetts for 

demolition, planning and design, and construction of affordable 

housing units. 224. $75,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts for renovation 

and build out of a historic building. 225. $75,000 to the Young Men’s Christian Association of 

Barnstable, Massachusetts for construction, renovation, and build 

out of a multipurpose facility. 226. $75,000 to the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, in Chatham, Massachusetts for construction, renovation, 

and build out of an ocean science policy and education center. 227. $75,000 to the Town of Easton, Massachusetts for construction, renovation and build out of recreational facilities. 

228. $75,000 to the City of Salem, Massachusetts for pier and 

seawall renovation, and streetscape improvements. 229. $500,000 to Historic St. Mary’s City Commission, St. Mary’s 

City, Maryland for construction, renovation, and build out of a historic facility. 230. $450,000 to the Catoctine Aqueduct Restoration Fund, Inc. 

in Point of Rocks, Maryland for the preservation and restoration of 

the Catoctine Aqueduct. 231. $150,000 to New Song Urban Ministries, Inc., in Baltimore, 

Maryland for facility construction, renovation and build out of a 

pre-school and community center. 232. $150,000 to the Town of Colmar Manor, Maryland for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 233. $100,000 to the Irvine Nature Center, Baltimore County, 

Maryland for relocation, planning and design, construction, and 

renovation of an environmental education facility. 234. $50,000 to the Westernport Heritage Society Museum in 

Westernport, Maryland for renovations to a facility. 235. $600,000 to the City of College Park, Maryland for land acquisition, planning and design, and construction of a parking facility. 

236. $100,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for sidewalk and 

streetscape improvements. 

237. $150,000 to the City of Bangor, Maine for planning and design and construction of affordable housing for veterans and their 

dependents. 

238. $100,000 to the Preble Street Resource Center, in Portland, 

Maine for planning and design, and construction of the Florence 

House Center for Homeless Women. 

239. $500,000 to the City of Detroit, Michigan for the demolition 

of dangerous structures. 

240. $500,000 to the Jewish Association for Residential Care of 

Farmington Hills, Michigan for the design and construction of energy efficient homes. 

241. $300,000 to the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy in Detroit, 

Michigan for East Riverfront Development streetscape improvements. 

242. $250,000 to Grand Valley State University in Muskegon, 

Michigan for improvements and renovations to the Field Station at 

the Annis Water Resources Institute. 

243. $250,000 to the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, 

Michigan for facility renovations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
130 

244. $250,000 to Presbyterian Villages of Michigan in Redford, 

Michigan for building renovations. 245. $250,000 to the Michigan Aerospace Foundation in Ann 

Arbor, Michigan for the construction of an Aviation Heritage Museum and Education Center at Willow Run Airport. 246. $200,000 to the Samaritan Center in Detroit, Michigan for 

renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 247. $190,000 to the Orion Veterans Memorial Fund in Orion, 

Michigan for the construction of the main monument. 248. $150,000 to The Wakefield Memorial Building Foundation 

in Wakefield, Michigan for renovation and build out of a historic 

building. 249. $150,000 to Focus: HOPE in Detroit, Michigan for building 

demolition, and facility renovation and build out. 250. $150,000 to Monroe County, Michigan for interior demolition, renovation, and build out of the Monroe Labor History Museum. 

251. $150,000 to Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, 

Michigan for renovation and build out of a multipurpose building, 

and revitalization of downtown Ypsilanti. 252. $150,000 to the Southfield, Michigan Youth Center Committee for construction, renovation and build out of a youth center. 253. $150,000 to the Detroit Zoological Society in Michigan for 

renovation and build out of science and education facilities. 

254. $50,000 to the Detroit Wayne County Port Authority for a 

feasibility study for the renovation of the Cobo Center in Detroit, 

Michigan. 255. $150,000 to the Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan 

Downtown Development Authority for streetscape improvements. 256. $100,000 to the City of Trenton, Michigan for revitalization 

and streetscape improvements. 257. $100,000 to the Genesee County, Michigan Metropolitan 

Planning Commission for streetscape improvements. 258. $400,000 to the Mesabi Academy of KidsPeace in Buhl, Minnesota for construction, expansion, renovation and build out of a 

multipurpose youth services facility. 

259. $250,000 to the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Red 

Lake, Minnesota for construction, renovation, and build out of a 

multipurpose complex. 

260. $150,000 to the Cedar Riverside People’s Center Medical 

Clinic in Minneapolis, Minnesota for renovation and build out of a 

neighborhood clinic. 

261. $100,000 to the Center for Asians and Pacific Islanders 

(CAPI) in Minneapolis, Minnesota for renovation and build out of 

a social services facility. 

262. $100,000 to the Boonville Economic Development Agency in 

Boonville, Missouri for the completion of a redevelopment plan. 

263. $1,500,000 to Southeast Missouri State University in Cape 

Girardeau, Missouri for renovation and construction of the new 

River Campus. 

264. $500,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri for the construction of a community multi-purpose facility. 

265. $400,000 to the Atchison County Memorial Building Foundation in Atchison County, Missouri for renovation of a historic 

building. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
131 

266. $200,000 to Brookfield Industrial Development in Brookfield, Missouri for construction and development of an industrial 

park. 267. $150,000 to the Black World History Museum in St. Louis, 

Missouri for facility upgrades, renovation, and build out. 268. $150,000 to the City of Raytown, Missouri for the demolition 

of an abandoned church. 

269. $100,000 to the City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri for construction of a senior center. 

270. $100,000 to the City of Ste. Genevieve, Missouri for downtown revitalization and streetscape improvements. 271. $1,500,000 to the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Mississippi for the construction of the William Faulkner Museum. 272. $250,000 to the City of Port Gibson, Mississippi for construction, renovation, and build out of community centers. 273. $100,000 to Clarke County, Mississippi for industrial park 

development. 274. $250,000 to Montana State University in Billings, Montana 

for planning and construction of the West End library and information center. 

275. $200,000 to the Harvest Community Foundation in Billings, 

Montana for the construction of a community center. 276. $50,000 to the Powell County Economic Development Corporation in Powell County, Montana for the rehabilitation of a 

building to reuse as a business incubator. 277. $500,000 to the TechRanch Technology Venture Center Incubator program in Bozeman, Montana for the expansion of the 

Technology Venture Center. 278. $200,000 to the Community Reinvestment Association of 

North Carolina for capitalization of a housing loan fund. 279. $750,000 to the University of North Carolina at Asheville in 

Asheville, North Carolina for construction of a science and multimedia building. 280. $500,000 to Eblen Charities of Asheville, North Carolina for 

construction of a multiuse facility in western North Carolina. 

281. $500,000 to the Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind in 

Asheville, North Carolina for the construction and build out of a facility. 

282. $300,000 to the City of Monroe, North Carolina for the conversion of the historic Old Armory Building into a community center. 

283. $250,000 to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hatteras, North Carolina for facility construction. 

284. $250,000 to Western Piedmont Community College, in Morganton, North Carolina for construction of a building. 

285. $200,000 to the City of Raeford, North Carolina for 

streetscape improvements. 

286. $200,000 to Child Care Services Association in Durham, 

North Carolina for planning and design and construction of a child 

care resource center. 

287. $200,000 to Family House at UNC Hospitals, in Chapel Hill, 

North Carolina for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

288. $150,000 to Bennett College for Women in North Carolina 

for renovation and build out of historic buildings. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
132 

289. $100,000 to the Wilson Community Improvement Association, in Wilson, North Carolina for planning and design, construction, renovation, and build out of a senior center. 

290. $100,000 to the City of Raleigh, North Carolina for 

streetscape improvements and construction of multipurpose facilities. 

291. $100,000 to Wake County, North Carolina for planning and 

design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

292. $100,000 to the John Avery Boys and Girls Club, Inc. in 

Durham, North Carolina for construction, expansion, renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

293. $75,000 to the African American Cultural Center in Wilmington, North Carolina for renovation and build out of the facility. 

294. $250,000 to Gaston County, North Carolina for the expansion of the Gaston County Technology Park. 

295. $100,000 to the University of North Dakota for planning 

and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

296. $500,000 for Girls and Boys Town USA of Boys Town, Nebraska for construction and renovation of facilities. 

297. $400,000 to the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the Antelope 

Valley Project. 

298. $300,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for 

streetscape improvements. 

299. $300,000 to the Crotched Mountain Foundation in Greenfield, New Hampshire for construction of the TRUST Center. 

300. $500,000 to Family Services of Morris County in Morristown, New Jersey for construction of a new program center. 

301. $350,000 to the College of Saint Elizabeth in Madison, New 

Jersey for the renovation of Henderson Hall. 

302. $250,000 to Essex County, New Jersey for planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

303. $250,000 to the City of Newark, New Jersey for downtown 

revitalization, park improvements, and streetscape improvements. 

304. $250,000 to The School for Children with Hidden Intelligence in Lakewood, New Jersey for the construction of a new 

school building. 

305. $250,000 to Isles, Inc. of Trenton, New Jersey for the redevelopment of a historic textile mill located on the border of Trenton 

and Hamilton. 

306. $170,000 to the Borough of High Bridge, New Jersey for facility renovations. 

307. $150,000 to Rutgers University-Camden, in Camden, New 

Jersey for planning and design and construction of a new multipurpose facility. 

308. $150,000 to William Paterson University in Wayne, New 

Jersey for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose 

facility. 

309. $150,000 to the Visiting Nurses Association of Central New 

Jersey in Red Bank, New Jersey for building renovation and build 

out of a facility in Manasquan, New Jersey. 

310. $100,000 to the Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey for restoration of the historic Ridgewood Village train station. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
133 

311. $100,000 to the Township of Delaware, New Jersey for planning and design and construction of a new community center. 

312. $100,000 to Essex County, New Jersey for construction, renovation and build out of recreational and tourist facilities. 

313. $100,000 to Broadway House for Continuing Care, in Newark, New Jersey for construction, expansion, renovation and build 

out of a multipurpose facility. 

314. $250,000 to Altantic County, New Jersey for design and development of an industrial park. 

315. $200,000 to Union County, New Jersey for industrial park 

development activities. 

316. $300,000 to the City of West Milford, New Jersey for 

streetscape improvements. 

317. $150,000 to Rutgers University for planning and design, 

construction, renovation and build out of facilities. 

318. $150,000 to Cliffside Park, New Jersey for streetscape improvements. 

319. $500,000 to the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico for the construction of a senior center. 

320. $400,000 to South Valley Community Dental in Albuquerque, New Mexico for construction of a new facility. 

321. $300,000 to Enlace Comunitario in Albuquerque, New Mexico for construction of a facility. 

322. $100,000 to the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

323. $250,000 to the Anthony-Berino Economic Development 

Corp. in Anthony, New Mexico for land acquisition and development of an industrial park. 

324. $500,000 to Opportunity Village in Las Vegas, Nevada for 

construction of an Employment & Training Center and an Arts & 

Enrichment Center. 

325. $100,000 to the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

326. $100,000 to the City of Rochester, New York for planning 

and expansion of the High Falls Film Festival, in support of the 

economic redevelopment of downtown Rochester. 

327. $500,000 to the Town of Fort Edward, New York for construction of the Rogers Island Museum and educational facility. 

328. $500,000 to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library 

in Hyde Park, New York for facility renovations. 

329. $450,000 to the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty in 

New York, New York for planning and design, construction, renovation, and build out of affordable housing. 

330. $400,000 to the Rome Community Brownfield Restoration 

Corporation in Rome, New York for the redevelopment of the 

former Rome Cable facility. 

331. $400,000 to Putnam County, New York for the construction 

of a senior center. 

332. $350,000 to Orange County, New York for the restoration 

and historic preservation of the Delaware and Hudson Canal. 

333. $300,000 to the Sephardic Community Center in Brooklyn, 

New York for the renovation and build out of facilities. 

334. $250,000 to Keuka College in Keuka Park, New York for the 

renovation of Ball Hall. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
134 

335. $250,000 to St. Bonaventure University in Allegany, New 

York for building construction and renovation. 336. $250,000 to the Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, 

New York for the conversion of the Strand Theater into a performing arts center. 337. $250,000 to Hamilton County, New York for the Wakely 

Lodge. 338. $250,000 to Orleans County Cornell Cooperative Extension 

in Albion, New York for construction of an education center at the 

Orleans County fairgrounds. 339. $250,000 to the New York State Education and Research 

Network in Syracuse, New York for the construction and renovation of a disaster recovery and business continuation facility in Syracuse, New York. 

340. $200,000 to the Children’s Museum in Utica, New York for 

building renovations. 341. $200,000 to the Unity House of Troy, Inc., Troy, New York 

for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 342. $200,000 to the Amherst Youth Foundation in Amherst, 

New York for renovations to the Independent Health Youth & 

Family Center in Williamsville, New York. 343. $200,000 to the New York City College of Technology for 

renovation and build out of facilities. 

344. $200,000 to Gouverneur Health Services in New York, New 

York for construction, renovation and build out of a nursing facility. 345. $150,000 to the City University of New York, Queens, in 

Queens, New York for museum construction, renovation, and build 

out. 

346. $150,000 to the Mt. Vernon Public Library in Mt. Vernon, 

New York for renovation and build out. 

347. $150,000 to the Hudson Guild Fulton Center, New York, 

New York for construction, renovation and build out of a community services center. 

348. $150,000 to the Brooklyn Children’s Museum in Brooklyn, 

New York for facility construction, renovation, and build out. 

349. $150,000 to the City College of New York for planning and 

design, construction, renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

350. $150,000 to the Kips Bay Boys and Girls Club West Bronx 

Clubhouse in New York, New York for renovation and build out of 

a youth facility. 

351. $150,000 to Southside United Housing in Brooklyn, NY for 

renovation and build out of housing. 

352. $150,000 to Greenpoint Manufacturing Design Center in 

Brooklyn, New York for planning and design, construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities, industrial park development, and streetscape improvements. 

353. $150,000 to the Syracuse Symphony Orchestra in Syracuse, 

New York for renovations to the Crouse-Hinds Theatre in the Mulroy Civic Center. 

354. $150,000 to the Catalpa, New York YMCA for renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

355. $100,000 to Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #4927, in 

Centereach, New York for building renovation and build out. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
135 

356. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Geneva Inc. in Geneva, New York for the construction of a facility. 

357. $100,000 to the Harding Community Center in the Bronx, 

New York for construction, renovation, and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

358. $100,000 to the Town of Orchard Park, New York for park 

and streetscape improvements, and planning and design and construction of a facility. 

359. $100,000 to Orange County Community College in Newburgh, New York for planning and design and construction of a 

multipurpose facility. 

360. $100,000 to the Sayville, New York American Legion Post 

for renovation and build out of a historic building. 

361. $100,000 to Mount Pleasant, New York for renovation and 

build out of a public library. 

362. $100,000 to the University at Albany, State University of 

New York for facility renovation and build out. 

363. $100,000 to the USS Slater Destroyer Escort Historical Museum in Albany, New York for preservation and upgrades. 

364. $100,000 to New York Families for Autistic Children 

(NYFAC), Inc., in Ozone Park, New York for planning and design 

and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

365. $100,000 to Alianza Dominicana, in New York, New York 

for planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of 

a multipurpose facility. 

366. $100,000 to the Village of Lewiston, New York for construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities, park improvements, and streetscape improvements. 

367. $100,000 to the Columbia County, New York Agricultural 

Association for renovation of the Main Fair House. 

368. $100,000 to the Delaware County E-Center in Delhi, New 

York for the construction of a small business incubator. 

369. $100,000 to Common Ground Community in New York, New 

York for renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

370. $75,000 to St. Anselm’s Church and School, Bronx, New 

York for facility renovation and build out. 

371. $75,000 to Fordham University in New York, New York for 

planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

372. $500,000 to WAMC Northeast Public Radio in Albany, New 

York for facilities expansion and rehabilitation. 

373. $300,000 to the Town of Clarkstown, New York for 

mainstreet revitalization and streetscape improvements. 

374. $200,000 to the Gerry Foundation, Inc. in Liberty, New 

York for building demolition and streetscape improvements. 

375. $200,000 to Group Ministries, Inc., in Buffalo, New York for 

renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

376. $100,000 to the Town of Harrison, New York for downtown 

revitalization and streetscape improvements. 

377. $100,000 to the Village of Elmsford, New York for 

mainstreet revitalization and streetscape improvements. 

378. $100,000 to the Village of Bellerose, New York for park and 

streetscape improvements. 

379. $500,000 to the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio 

for construction of the Medical Sciences Building. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
136 

380. $500,000 to the City of Cincinnati, Ohio for remediation of 

the Phase I redevelopment. 381. $500,000 to the City of Springfield, Ohio for land acquisition 

and relocation and demolition of residential and commercial properties. 

382. $500,000 to the Neighborhood Housing Partnership in 

Springfield, Ohio for the acquisition and redevelopment of blighted 

properties within the boundaries of Selma Road, Drexel Avenue, 

Clifton Avenue, and Euclid Avenue. 

383. $500,000 to HAP Community Action in Glouster, Ohio for 

the construction of a building. 384. $500,000 to the Audubon Society in Columbus, Ohio for the 

construction of a new Audubon Nature Center on the Whittier Peninsula. 

385. $500,000 to the Franklin Park Conservatory in Columbus, 

Ohio for the renovation and construction of facilities. 

386. $300,000 to the Springfield Arts Council in Springfield, Ohio 

for the construction of the west plaza comfort station. 387. $300,000 to Ross County, Ohio for development of an industrial park and multipurpose building. 388. $250,000 to the Marsh Foundation in Van Wert, Ohio for 

building renovations to a facility. 389. $250,000 to the St. Mary Development Corporation in Dayton, Ohio for the demolition of blighted properties and streetscape 

improvements. 390. $250,000 to the St. Mary Development Corporation in Dayton, Ohio for building demolition. 391. $250,000 to Wright State University in Fairborn, Ohio for 

the construction of a Creative Arts Center Annex. 

392. $200,000 to the University of Toledo in Ohio for construction, renovation, and build out of a Clean and Alternative Energy 

Center. 

393. $200,000 to Carroll County, Ohio for the construction of a 

community center. 

394. $200,000 to the Youngstown, Ohio Central Area Community 

Improvement Corp. for planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

395. $175,000 to the Union County Veterans Remembrance Committee in Union County, Ohio for the construction of a veterans 

monument. 

396. $100,000 to Starr Commonwealth in Van Wert, Ohio for 

building renovations to a facility. 

397. $100,000 to the Village of Jamestown, Ohio for building renovations to the Jamestown Opera House. 

398. $100,000 to the Goodrich Gannett Neighborhood Center in 

Cleveland, Ohio for construction, expansion, renovation and build 

out of facilities. 

399. $100,000 to Connecting Point in Toledo, Ohio for planning 

and design, construction, renovation and build out of community 

services facilities. 

400. $100,000 to the West Creek Preservation Committee in 

Parma, Ohio for renovation and build out of a historic building. 

401. $500,000 to the Stark County Park District in Bethlehem 

Township, Pennsylvania for the acquisition of land in Bethlehem 

Township, Ohio for the purposes of developing a new park. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
137 

402. $500,000 to the City of Green, Ohio for the Southgate Farm 

Acquisition project. 403. $100,000 to the City of Lorain, Ohio for building acquisition, 

renovation, and build out. 

404. $250,000 to the City of Lebanon, Ohio for streetscape improvements. 405. $400,000 to the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the construction of the 

American Indian Cultural Center and Museum. 

406. $350,000 to the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the construction of the Oklahoma City Memorial. 407. $250,000 to the Ardmore Community Resources Center in 

Ardmore, Oklahoma for the construction of Phase 2 of the development of a community resource center. 408. $250,000 to the Cherokee Strip Regional Heritage Center in 

Enid, Oklahoma for facility renovation and build out. 409. $100,000 to Eastern Oklahoma State College, in Wilburton, 

Oklahoma for construction and renovation of a multipurpose facility. 410. $75,000 to the City of Astoria, Oregon for planning and design and construction of a Chinese heritage park. 411. $100,000 to the City of Eugene, Oregon for demolition, planning and design, construction, renovation, and build out of a field 

science laboratory at the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center. 412. $100,000 to Depoe Bay Neighbors for Kids, Depoe Bay, Oregon for construction, renovation and build out of a facility designed to provide educational and recreational activities for children. 

413. $100,000 to the Community College of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the expansion of the Northeast Regional Center. 414. $500,000 to Montgomery County Community College in Blue 

Bell, Pennsylvania for construction of a facility. 415. $350,000 to the Titusville YMCA in Titusville Pennsylvania 

for building renovations. 

416. $310,000 to the Waynesburg College Center in Pennsylvania 

for construction of a multipurpose facility. 

417. $300,000 to the Jefferson Square Community Development 

Corporation, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of housing. 

418. $300,000 to the City Wide Youth Agency in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania for planning and design, construction, renovation, 

and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

419. $300,000 to Armstrong County, Pennsylvania for rebuilding 

the Belmont Complex. 

420. $250,000 to the Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania 

for streetscape improvements. 

421. $250,000 to the Butler Penn Theater Community Trust in 

Butler, Pennsylvania for facility planning, construction, and redevelopment. 

422. $250,000 to EDC Finance Corporation of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the demolition and remediation of the decommissioned 

Armstrong World Industries plant. 

423. $250,000 to the Carlisle Regional Performing Arts Center in 

Carlisle, Pennsylvania for the renovation of the Carlisle Theater. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
138 

424. $250,000 to the Greater Honesdale Partnership, Wayne 

County, Pennsylvania in Honesdale, Pennsylvania for the purchase 

and reconstruction of a building. 

425. $250,000 to the Central Bradford Progress Authority in 

Towanda, Pennsylvania for the acquisition or construction of an 

economic development facility. 

426. $250,000 to the Factoryville Borough/Clinton Joint Municipal Authority in Factoryville Borough, Pennsylvania for the extension of sewer lines for the expansion of Keystone College. 

427. $240,000 to Pennsylvania Highlands Community College for 

construction, renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

428. $200,000 to the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, 

Pennsylvania for the expansion of McKenna Hall. 

429. $200,000 to Greene County, Pennsylvania for construction, 

renovation and build out of recreational facilities. 

430. $200,000 to the Pennsylvania Hunting and Fishing Museum 

in Tionesta, Pennsylvania for construction and renovation of a facility. 

431. $200,000 to Downtown Lewistown, Inc. in Lewistown, Pennsylvania for the redevelopment, build out, and renovation of a 

former regional bank headquarters building. 

432. $200,000 to Widener University’s Small Business Center in 

Chester, Pennsylvania for renovations to the Small Business Development Center. 

433. $100,000 to LaSalle University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for capitalization of a loan fund. 

434. $100,000 to the Focus on Renewal Cultural Arts Center, in 

McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania for planning and design and construction of a recreational and education facility. 

435. $100,000 to the Bucks County Pennsylvania Community 

College, Lower Bucks Campus in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania 

for the construction of a permanent campus. 

436. $100,000 to the Churchville Nature Center in Bucks County, 

Pennsylvania for the construction and build out of the Churchville 

Nature Center. 

437. $100,000 to the Self Help Movement in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for renovations of a facility. 

438. $100,000 to the FM Kirby Center in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania for facility renovation and build out of a historic building. 

439. $100,000 to the Northern Blair County Recreation Commission in Antis Township, Pennsylvania for construction of fitness 

center, recreational sports fields and other enhancements to recreational facilities in Antis Township, Pennsylvania. 

440. $100,000 to the Fayette County Agricultural Improvement 

Association in Dunbar, Pennsylvania for renovations and build out 

of an outdoor arena that is used for the county fair. 

441. $75,000 to the Ambler Theater in Ambler, Pennsylvania for 

facility construction, renovation and build out, and handicap-accessibility improvements, for a nonprofit community theater. 

442. $50,000 to the Lower Bucks County Chapter of Disabled 

American Veterans 117 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania for renovation and build out of a facility in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

443. $50,000 to the Caldonia Theater Company in Fayetteville, 

Pennsylvania for facility renovations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
139 

444. $300,000 to the Municipality of Monroeville, Pennsylvania 

for streetscape improvements. 

445. $100,000 to the Borough of Robesonia, Pennsylvania for 

streetscape improvements. 

446. $75,000 to the Mayfair Community Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for construction, renovation, and 

build out of a multipurpose facility, and streetscape improvements. 

447. $250,000 to the Municipality of Yauco, Puerto Rico for the 

construction of low income housing units. 

448. $150,000 to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community 

Center in Newport, Rhode Island for renovation and build out of 

a community center. 

449. $150,000 to the City of Central Falls, Rhode Island for park 

improvements and renovation and build out of facilities. 

450. $100,000 to Rhode Island College for renovation and build 

out of a multipurpose facility. 

451. $100,000 to Greenwood County, South Carolina for the construction of a library. 

452. $400,000 to the Township of Rembert, South Carolina for 

planning and design and construction of a community center. 

453. $250,000 to the City of Charleston, South Carolina for the 

construction of the Spirit of South Carolina. 

454. $250,000 to the City of Charleston, South Carolina for improvements to the Spring Street/Fishburne Street drainage basin. 

455. $150,000 to the Choppee Regional Resource Center in 

Georgetown County, South Carolina for planning and design and 

construction of a multipurpose facility. 

456. $150,000 to the Richland County Recreation Commission in 

Columbia, South Carolina for construction, expansion, renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

457. $150,000 to Williamsburg County, South Carolina for renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

458. $150,000 to the city of Walterboro, South Carolina for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility, and 

streetscape improvements. 

459. $150,000 to the Progressive Club in John’s Island, South 

Carolina for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

460. $150,000 to the Brainerd Institute Foundation in Chester, 

South Carolina for renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

461. $150,000 to Chester County, South Carolina Council for 

planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

462. $150,000 to the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina for planning and design, construction, renovation, and build out of multipurpose facilities, industrial park development, and streetscape improvements. 

463. $100,000 to the City of North Charleston, South Carolina for 

planning and design, construction, renovation and build out of multipurpose facilities. 

464. $400,000 to The Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Ft. 

Pierre, South Dakota for facility construction and build out. 

465. $100,000 to Saint Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, 

South Dakota for planning and design and construction of facilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
140 

466. $100,000 to the City of Jackson, Tennessee for construction, 

renovation, and build out of recreational facilities, and park improvements. 467. $400,000 to the Oak Ridge Nanotechnology Commercialization Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for the construction of the 

Oak Ridge Nanotechnology Commercialization Center. 468. $150,000 to the African American History Foundation of 

Nashville, Tennessee for planning and design and construction of 

a museum. 

469. $150,000 to Overton County, Tennessee for planning and design and construction of a new library. 470. $100,000 to Roane State Community College in Harriman, 

Tennessee for planning and design, construction and build out of 

a business incubator center. 

471. $100,000 to Lemoyne-Owen College in Memphis, Tennessee 

for planning and design and construction of housing. 472. $100,000 to Cannon County, Tennessee for downtown revitalization and streetscape improvements. 473. $850,000 to the John Nance Garner Museum in Uvalde, 

Texas for building renovations. 474. $750,000 to the City of Temple, Texas for the acquisition 

and renovation of a facility. 475. $750,000 to Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas 

for the construction of the Center for Lifelong Learning. 476. $600,000 to the City of Bellmead, Texas for facility construction, renovation and build out. 

477. $400,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for facility design, 

construction, and property acquisition as part of the Trinity River 

Vision Plan. 

478. $250,000 to the City of Arlington Chamber of Commerce in 

Arlington, Texas for the construction of the Entrepreneur Center. 479. $250,000 to the Hearne Economic Development Corp., in 

Hearne, Texas for renovation, build out, and conversion of historic 

Camp Hearne facilities. 

480. $250,000 to Texas College Tyler, Texas for the construction 

of the Texas College Single Parent Support Learning Complex. 

481. $150,000 to the Mt. Zion Federal Credit Union in San Antonio, Texas for purchase, construction, renovation, and build out of 

a facility. 

482. $150,000 to Harris County Precinct Three, Texas for construction and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

483. $150,000 to the Houston Hispanic Forum in Texas for construction, renovation and build out of a new Hispanic Cultural and 

Educational Center. 

484. $150,000 to the Port of Brownsville, Texas for planning and 

design and construction of a dock facility. 

485. $100,000 to the Southwest Key Program, Inc., in Austin, 

Texas for planning and design and construction of a multipurpose 

facility. 

486. $100,000 to the Houston Zoo in Texas for planning and design and construction of an educational facility. 

487. $100,000 to the City of San Juan, Texas for planning and 

design and construction of a new library. 

488. $100,000 to the Houston Zoo in Houston, Texas for the construction of the Outdoor Life Science Learning Center. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
141 

489. $100,000 to the El Paso, Texas History Museum for construction, renovation and build out of a museum. 

490. $100,000 to the El Paso, Texas Empowerment Zone for planning and design and construction of multipurpose facilities, and 

streetscape improvements. 

491. $100,000 to the City of San Antonio, Texas for planning and 

design and construction of a pedestrian bridge, and streetscape improvements. 

492. $225,000 to Southern Utah University for planning and design and construction of facilities, in connection with the USF Center project. 

493. $225,000 to the Western Mining and Railroad Museum in 

Helper, Utah for planning and design, construction, renovation and 

build out of the facility. 

494. $500,000 to the Virginia Holocaust Museum in Richmond, 

Virginia for facility construction and renovation. 

495. $400,000 to the Bayview Citizens for Social Justice, Inc. in 

Bayview, Virginia for the construction of two multi-purpose buildings. 

496. $250,000 to the Fairfax County, Virginia Park Authority for 

revitalization of Ossian Park in Annandale, Virginia. 

497. $250,000 to the City of Chesapeake, Virginia for development and construction of Heritage Park. 

498. $250,000 to the Art Museum of Western Virginia in Roanoke, Virginia for the construction of a new facility. 

499. $250,000 to Shenandoah University in Winchester, Virginia 

for the construction of a business school. 

500. $180,000 to the Historic Roanoke City Market in Roanoke, 

Virginia for facility renovations. 

501. $150,000 to the Russell County, Virginia Industrial Development Authority for construction, renovation, and build out of a 

technology workforce training center in Lebanon, Virginia. 

502. $150,000 to the Arlington, Virginia Housing Corporation for 

planning and design and construction of multipurpose facilities, 

and outdoor improvements. 

503. $150,000 to St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia for renovation and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

504. $100,000 to the Town of Clarksville, Virginia for construction of the Clarksville Community Center. 

505. $100,000 to the Town of Rocky Mount, Virginia for the 

Crooked Road Project. 

506. $100,000 to the Bassett Historical Center in Henry County, 

Virginia for facilities construction. 

507. $100,000 to Schuyler Community Center in Nelson County, 

Virginia for structural repairs to the Schuyler Community Center. 

508. $75,000 to the Town of Boydton, Virginia for the continuation of the revitalization of the central business district. 

509. $70,000 to the Shenandoah County, Virginia Performing 

Arts Center for the renovation of the Edinburg School as it converts into the Shenandoah County Performing Arts Center. 

510. $50,000 to Fairfax County, Virginia Park Authority for field 

improvements in Annandale, Virginia. 

511. $50,000 to the Clarksville Fine Arts Center in Clarksville, 

Virginia for facility renovations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
142 

512. $150,000 to Henrico County, Virginia for land acquisition, 

planning and design, and construction of a memorial and visitors 

center. 

513. $100,000 to the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands for 

planning and design and construction of a visitors center. 

514. $150,000 to Champlain Valley, Vermont Agency on Aging 

for construction, renovation and build out of senior centers. 

515. $100,000 to the Snohomish County, Washington Economic 

Development Commission for economic development planning activities. 

516. $250,000 to Virtual Possibilities Network in Spokane, Washington for expansion and upgrades to infrastructure and supporting 

ancillary applications. 

517. $150,000 to the Seattle, Washington Housing Authority for 

planning and design and construction of a multipurpose facility. 

518. $100,000 to the Washington Technology Center in Vancouver, Washington for facility renovation and build out. 

519. $100,000 to the Nisqually Indian Tribe, in Washington state 

for site preparation, in advance of economic development activities. 

520. $100,000 to the Hamilton, Washington Public Development 

Authority for land acquisition, planning and design, and construction of housing and infrastructure, to assist in the redevelopment 

of Hamilton, Washington. 

521. $300,000 to the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning 

Commission for capitalization of a revolving loan fund. 

522. $250,000 to Impact Seven in Almena, Wisconsin for land acquisition, planning and design, construction, renovation and build 

out of multipurpose facilities. 

523. $250,000 to the City of Cedarburg, Wisconsin for the demolition of a former manufacturing facility. 

524. $200,000 to the Hudson Area Joint Library in Hudson, Wisconsin for planning and design and construction of a new library. 

525. $200,000 to the Marshfield, Wisconsin Area Chamber of 

Commerce for capitalization of a revolving loan fund. 

526. $150,000 to the Madison Development Corporation, in Madison, Wisconsin for facility development and equipment purchase 

and installation. 

527. $150,000 to the Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wisconsin, in Madison, Wisconsin for facility renovation, build out, and 

construction. 

528. $150,000 to the Metropolitan Business Collaborative in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for planning and design and construction of a 

multipurpose facility. 

529. $150,000 to the Garfield Park Development LLC in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for industrial park development. 

530. $100,000 to the Chippewa Valley Technical College in Eau 

Claire, Wisconsin for planning and design, construction, renovation 

and build out of a multipurpose facility. 

531. $300,000 to Marshall University in Point Pleasant, West 

Virginia for the construction and build out of the Marshall MidOhio Valley Center. 

532. $200,000 to the Kanawha Valley YMCA in Charleston, West 

Virginia for facility renovations and build out. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
143 

533. $150,000 to the Southern West Virginia Community and 

Technology College for construction, renovation and build out of a 

multipurpose facility. 534. $100,000 to the City of Romney, West Virginia for the renovation and conversion of the Coca Cola bottling plant into a culture and arts center. 

535. $100,000 to the Marion County, West Virginia Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Inc. for facilities construction and renovation and 

build out of a community center. 536. $100,000 to the Metropolitan Theatre Foundation in Morgantown, West Virginia for construction, renovation and build out 

of facilities. 

537. $100,000 to the City of Weirton, West Virginia for planning 

and design, construction, renovation, and build out of facilities. 538. $100,000 to the Monongalia County, West Virginia Schools 

Foundation, Inc. for construction of recreational facilities. 

539. $100,000 to the West Virginia Northern Community College 

in Wheeling, West Virginia for planning, design, construction, renovation and build out of facilities. 

540. $100,000 to the City of Clarksburg, West Virginia for planning associated with economic revitalization of the area. 541. $100,000 to Alderson-Broaddus College in Philippi, West 

Virginia for planning and design, construction, renovation, and 

build out of facilities. 

542. $100,000 to Connected Technologies Corridors, Inc. in Beckley, West Virginia for construction, renovation and build out of 

multipurpose facilities. 543. $250,000 to Ark Regional Services of Laramie, Wyoming for 

construction of a facility. 544. $250,000 to the Dubois Community Project, Inc. of Dubois, 

Wyoming for the construction, renovation, and build out of facilities. 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood Initiatives program as follows: 

1. $600,000 to Center for Creative Land Recycling in San Francisco, California for technical assistance for land remediation and 

redevelopment. 

2. $400,000 to Westfield Vocational/Technical High School in 

Westfield, Massachusetts for upgrading facilities and equipment. 

3. $750,000 to Walsh College in Troy, Michigan for the construction of a main campus library. 

4. $1,000,000 to the Neighborhood Initiative Program in Syracuse, New York for the continuation of the Neighborhood Initiative 

Program. 

5. $375,000 to the Metropolitan Development Association in Syracuse, New York for the continuation of the Essential New York 

Initiative. 

6. $1,250,000 to Bucks County Community College in Bucks 

County, Pennsylvania for facilities design and construction. 

7. $750,000 to Pennsylvania Highlands Community College for 

land acquisition, planning and design, construction, renovation, 

and build out of facilities. 

8. $2,000,000 to the City of Charleston, South Carolina for planning and design, construction and build out of the City of Charleston’s International African American Museum. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
144 

9. $250,000 to NWCEP, Inc. in Ashland, Wisconsin for education 

and training, emergency assistance, and related services for displaced workers and their families. 

The Committee agrees with the Administration’s proposal to shift 

the Youthbuild program to the Department of Labor. This move 

will allow for better management of the program and is more 

aligned with the objectives of that department. 

Additionally, the Committee has maintained the formula program at the highest possible level for fiscal year 2007, consistent 

with the need to fund Section 8 rental assistance programs, meet 

the public housing operating expenses administered by public housing authorities, as well as the housing programs for the elderly and 

disabled. This effort has been complicated by what can only be described as the Administration’s arbitrary cut to the CDBG program. The Administration has justified the proposed reduced funding level relative to fiscal year 2006 as part of a reform of the program to be coupled with a change to the formula for distributing 

funds. Yet despite months of lead time prior to the submission of 

the Administration’s budget request, it has failed to deliver a reform proposal in time to be considered and acted on by the relevant 

committees of jurisdiction. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program cost: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $3,713,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥3,713,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

Limitation on Guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ...................................................... $137,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥137,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 

market loans to assist local communities in the financing of the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic development projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funds for this program as was 

proposed in the budget. No funds were requested by the administration. In fiscal year 2006, $3,712,500 was provided for program 

costs with a loan limitation of $137,500,000. While the Committee 

recognizes that there is a place for a non-competitive loan program 

to fill gaps in funding at the local level, this program is not consistent with current government loan principles and has not been 

fully utilized due to the reluctance to use Community Development 

Block Grant funds as collateral. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
145 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $9,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥9,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 

economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 loan 

guarantees for qualified Brownfields projects. Grants are made in 

accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The goal of the 

program is to return contaminated sites to productive uses with an 

emphasis on creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income 

people in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no funding for the Brownfields Redevelopment Program at HUD. The budget request has proposed 

no funding for the past several years. Congress enacted $9,900,000 

in fiscal year 2006 for the program while also rescinding 

$10,000,000 of unobligated balances. The Committee believes that 

due to the recent dramatic increases in funding in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and expanded EPA authority in 

recent authorizations for this program, HUD funding is no longer 

essential or appropriate. The House has already provided 

$2,336,442,000 in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for the 

EPA program. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,757,250,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,916,640,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,916,640,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +159,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula allocations to provide grants to States, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for the purpose of expanding the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon receipt, State 

and local governments develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to provide rental assistance to eligible families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,916,640,000 for activities funded 

under this account, $159,390,000 above the level enacted in fiscal 

year 2006 and the same as the request. Funds are provided as follows: 

—Formula Grants: $1,827,945,000 for formula grants for 

participating jurisdictions (States, units of local government 

and consortia of units of local government) and insular areas, 

an increase of $151,297,000 above the amount enacted for fisVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
146 

cal year 2006 and $28,303,000 above the amount requested. Of 

the amount provided, pursuant to the authorizing statute, at 

least 15 percent of each participating jurisdiction’s allocation is 

reserved for housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by 

Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs); —HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $9,900,000 for technical assistance activities for State and local participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The Committee notes that 

the HOME statute authorizes technical assistance to be provided through contracts with eligible non-profit intennediaries 

as well as with other organizations recommended by participating jurisdictions and therefore directs HUD to use 

$3,500,000 to contract with qualified non-profit intermediaries 

to provide CHDO, technical assistance in fiscal year 2007; —Housing Counseling: $41,580,000, plus an additional $9,000,000 for contracts to provide counseling of prospective 

HECM borrowers as required by subsection (f) of section 255 

of the National Housing Act (12 D.S.C. 1715z–20); —Working Capital Fund: no less than $3,465,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the development 

and modification of information technology systems that serve 

programs and activities under Community Planning and Development. In addition to the amounts above; and —Down-payment Assistance Initiative: $24,750,000 for the 

Down-payment Assistance Initiative to be allocated by the Secretary to participating jurisdictions to provide down-payment 

assistance to low income families to help them achieve homeownership. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $60,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 39,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 60,390,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +20,690,000 

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 organizations’ 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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $60,390,000 for the Self Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs 

that previously have been funded as set asides within the Community Development Fund. This is the same as the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and $20,690,000 above the budget request. 

The budget request did not propose any funding in this account 

beyond the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. However, programs within this account provide a critical role promoting 

affordable housing and the ability to maximize the federal investment in these activities; a role that is all the more critical in the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
147 

context of fiscal restraint and demonstrated results. Therefore language is included that provides: —$21,920,000 for the Self Help Homeownership Program; 

—$32,000,000 for the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI) for LISC and Enterprise Foundation, of which 

$1,000,000 is for capacity building activities administered by 

Habitat for Humanity and not less than $1,000,000, is for rural 

areas; 

—$1,980,000 for the National Housing Development Corporation; —$3,500,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; and 

—$990,000 for Technical Assistance. 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,326,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,535,990,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,535,990,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +209,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for the 

following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: 

(1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation (Single Room 

Occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care program. This 

account also supports activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at $1,535,990,000, an increase of $209,390,000 above the enacted level 

for 2006 and the same as the budget request. The recommendation 

includes no less than $285,000,000 for full funding of the costs associated with the renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language is included in the bill requiring funds to be made 

available for this purpose. Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative and the Samaritan bonus are not included. The recommendation also includes $10,395,000 for technical assistance and data 

analysis, and no less than $2,475,000 for transfer to the Working 

Capital Fund for development and modifications of information 

technology systems that serve activities under Community Planning and Development. The Committee directs the Department to 

ensure to the largest extent possible that funding is made available 

for all eligible activities including permanent housing, transitional 

housing, and supportive service. 

Language is included in the bill that: (1) requires not less than 

30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding amounts made 

available for renewals under the shelter plus care program, be used 

for permanent housing; (2) requires the renewal of all expiring 

shelter plus care contracts; (3) requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for social services activities; (4) requires 

all homeless programs to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social services, and employment programs; and (5) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
148 

provides two year availability for obligation of funds provided 

under this account, except that no year availability is provided for 

the portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program. 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $5,037,417,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 5,675,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,475,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +438,283,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥200,000,000 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides a 

rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific housing unit 

so that the properties themselves, rather than the individual living 

in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts provided in this account 

include funding for the renewal of expiring project-based contracts, 

including Section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and administrative costs for performance-based, projectbased Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with 

administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy 

contracts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $5,475,700,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, of which $145,500,000 is for the 

costs of contract administrators and $3,960,000 is for the Working 

Capital Fund. This funding level is $438,283,000 above the enacted 

level for fiscal year 2006 and is $200,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes the use of 

project-based recaptures for the renewal of project-based contracts 

and amendments as well as for performance-based contract administrators in 2007. 

The Committee remains concerned that the Department take 

adequate measures to avoid late or delayed payments to providers 

of Project Based Section 8 rental housing. GAO’s report ‘‘ProjectBased Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to 

ensure Timely Housing Assistance Payments (GA)–06–57)’’ recommended three specific areas for improvement which the Department agreed would enhance performance in this area. These include: (1) streamlining and automating the contract renewal process; (2) developing systematic means to better estimate the 

amounts that should be allocated to project-based assistance contracts, monitor ongoing funding needs of each contract, and ensure 

that additional funds are promptly obligated to contracts when necessary to prevent payment delays; and, (3) notify owners promptly 

if payments will be made late and the date by which HUD expects 

to make the monthly payment to the owner. 

The Committee understands that the Department has engaged 

consultants to develop measures to implement these recommendations. Accordingly, the Department is directed to provide the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
149 

mittee with a report on progress achieved in reducing the incidence 

of late payments to project-based providers and other measures to 

implement GAO’s recommendations to accompany the Department’s fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan submission. The report is 

to include a preliminary allocation plan for fiscal year 2007 funding 

requirements for both project-based contract renewal and amendment funding needs in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the report accompanying the Operating Plan is to address how the proposed fiscal year 2007 program for project based-based renewals and 

amendments, as reflected in the preliminary allocation plan, is to 

be funded using a combination of new budget authority and recaptures in fiscal year 2007. 

The Department is directed to submit supporting documentation 

accompanying the fiscal year 2008 project-based Section 8 budget 

request. This documentation is to include a project-by-project analysis that verifies the funding request for renewals and amendments. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $734,580,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 545,490,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 734,580,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +189,090,000 

The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants to finance 

the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of housing intended 

for low income elderly people. In addition, the program provides 

project-based rental assistance contracts (PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $734,580,000 for the Section 202 

program for fiscal year 2007, the same level as enacted for fiscal 

year 2006 and $189,090,000 above the request for fiscal year 2007. 

The recommendation allocates funding as follows: 

—$603,900,000 for new capital and project rental assistance 

contracts (PRAC); 

—$44,550,000 for one year renewals of expiring PRAC payments; 

—$59,400,000 for service coordinators and the continuation 

of congregate services grants; 

—$24,750,000 for grants to convert section 202 projects to 

assisted living facilities; and —No less than $1,980,000 to be transfered to the Working 

Capital Fund to support the development of and modifications 

to information technology systems, which support programs 

and activities for the elderly. 

The Committee continues language relating to the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this heading. Language is also included to allow these funds to be used for 

inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment 

Center (REAC). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
150 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $236,610,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 118,800,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 236,610,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +117,810,000 

The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) program 

provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital 

grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 

supportive housing for disabled persons and provides project-based 

rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs for such 

units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $236,610,000 for Section 811 activities, the same as fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and $117,810,000 

above the budget request. In doing so, the Committee rejects the 

proposal to all but eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that accommodate low income disabled individuals. The Committee finds that, in fact, there is universal agreement at all levels 

of analysis that facility construction is needed for this program in 

fiscal year 2007. The recommendation allocates funding as follows: 

—Up to $145,875,000 for capital grants and PRAC; 

—$74,745,000 for renewals or amendments of expiring tenant-based rental assistance; 

—$15,000,000 for PRAC renewals; 

—$990,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the 

development and maintenance of information technology systems for programs and activities for housing for persons with 

disabilities programs; and 

—No funds are provided for ‘‘mainstream’’ vouchers in fiscal 

year 2007. 

The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be 

used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s REAC program 

office. 

The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2007, the number of non-elderly disabled 

vouchers that are still in circulation and being used by non-elderly 

disabled individuals. 

HOUSING COUNSELING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... $44,550,000 

Recommended in the bill – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥44,500,000 

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 

authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and the 

homeless. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
151 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate 

account for housing counseling activities, but instead has provided 

$41,580,000 for this activity as a set-aside within the HOME Investments Partnership Program account. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 

HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections in 

excess of the established basic rents for units in Section 236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in appropriations 

acts, the Secretary is authorized under the Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled Projects Operating 

Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 

as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 

Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will not 

be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset flexible 

subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing projects. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes language identical to 

language carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds derived 

from rental collections which were in excess of allowable rent levels 

to be returned to project owners only for the purposes of rehabilitating and renovating those properties. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Offsetting collections ................................................................... 13,000,000 

Budget request, 2007 ......................................................................... 16,000,000 

Offsetting collections ................................................................... 16,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,000,000 

Offsetting collections ................................................................... 16,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends up to $16,000,000 for the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected 

and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
152 

of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as the budget request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Language contained in previous Acts is continued to ensure that the 

net expenditures do not exceed fee collections at the end of the fiscal year. 

In addition, The Committee includes language allowing the Department to collect fees from program participants for the dispute 

resolution and installation programs. These fees are to be deposited 

into the trust fund and may be used by the Department subject to 

the overall cap placed on the account. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct 

loans 

Limitation of guaranteed 

loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .......................................... $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $351,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................. – – – – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .............................. – – – – – – – – – 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) mutual mortgage 

insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance funds. 

This program account covers unsubsidized programs, primarily the 

single-family home mortgage program, which is the largest of all 

the FHA programs. The cooperative housing insurance program 

provides mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than 

five units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 

corporation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments in the MMI program account: $185,000,000,000 for 

loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The recommendation also includes $351,450,000 for administrative expenses, of 

which $347,490,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses, and 

$3,960,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, $52,400,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 

contract expenses, of which $23,562,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to information 

technology systems that serve programs or activities under the Office of Housing or the Federal Housing Administration. The Committee continues language, as requested, appropriating additional 

administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of 

direct loans 

Limitation of 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Program 

costs 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ... $50,000,000 $35,000,000,000 $229,086,000 $8,712,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
153 

Limitation of 

direct loans 

Limitation of 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 

expenses 

Program 

costs 

Recommended in the bill ............. 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 

2006 .................................... – – – – – – – – – ¥112,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 

2007 .................................... – – – – – – – – – 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) general and special 

risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 different 

programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single and multi-family loans, including loans for property improvements, manufactured 

housing, multi-family rental housing, condominiums, housing for 

the elderly, hospitals, group practice facilities, and nursing homes. 

The SRI fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, 

declining urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages 

for experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would 

not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing 

counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 

account as requested: $35,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 

$50,000,000 for direct loans. 

As requested, the recommendation includes $8,600,000 in direct 

appropriations for credit subsidy. The recommendation also includes $229,086,000 for administrative expenses, of which 

$209,286,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses and 

$19,800,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An 

additional $72,778,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 

expenses, of which no less than $10,692,000 is transferred to the 

Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to information technology systems that serve activities under the Office of 

Housing or the Federal Housing Administration. 

The Committee is very concerned with the proposed increase in 

the annual premium charged for most multi-family loan guarantees 

in the fiscal year 2007 request. The stated rationale for this substantial premium increase is to offset administrative costs associated with these programs. However no detailed explanation has 

been given for the amount of this premium increase, its likely adverse effect on loan volume and affordable rental housing production, or the resulting rent increases necessary to cover the cost of 

the larger premium payments. Moreover, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 specifically mandates that administrative costs associated with loan guarantee programs be paid from discretionary 

appropriations rather than being reflected in the credit programs 

financing. 

The Committee sees no merit in the Administration’s argument 

that these mortgage insurance premiums should be raised because 

these programs have not clearly demonstrated effectiveness in 

meeting affordable housing goals. Raising program costs can only 

diminish the contribution of these programs in expanding lower 

cost housing opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
154 

shortage of affordable housing, imposing further constraints on 

FHA rental housing development makes little sense. 

The proposed mortgage insurance premium increase reverses the 

previous policy of the Administration to work towards the lowest 

premium allowable while still enabling FHA to offer this rental 

housing financing at no cost to the taxpayers. For the largest moderate income rental housing development program offered by FHA, 

the proposed premium represents more than a 71 percent increase 

in annual cost. These very substantial premium increases would 

also be levied against the FHA nursing home and hospital financing programs. 

Given the very substantial size of the premium increase and the 

abrupt reversal of the underlying policy of the Department in setting these premiums, the Committee believes strongly that full notice and comment rulemaking would be the only appropriate mechanism to pursue this proposal, and so directs the Department. Such 

administrative procedures would accord FHA industry partners, including lenders, developers, and builders, an opportunity to comment on the proposal. It would also permit a full assessment of the 

likely impact of such a premium increase on the volume of multifamily rental housing development, and the consequential effects of 

higher financing costs on rents borne by moderate income residents. 

Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the appropriate Committees of Congress a thorough assessment of the potential adverse effects of the proposed premium structure, including 

the evaluation of alternatives such as utilizing negative subsidy 

and program revenues to cover administrative costs, before proceeding with implementation of the fee increases proposed in the 

budget. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of guaranteed loans: Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ $200,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. 100,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill .......................................................... 100,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................ ¥100,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .......................................... – – – 

Administrative expenses: Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ $10,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. 54,000,000 

Recommended in the bill .......................................................... 10,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................ – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 .......................................... ¥43,300,000 

The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program facilitates 

the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed 

by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees the 

timely payment of principal and interest on securities issued by 

private service institutions such as mortgage companies, commerVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
155 

cial banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations that 

assemble pools of mortgages, and issues securities backed by the 

pools. In turn, investment proceeds are used to finance additional 

mortgage loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit 

in the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 

insurance companies, and individuals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes a $100,000,000,000 limitation on 

loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested, a 

$100,000,000,000 reduction from the level provided in fiscal year 

2006. The Committee also recommends $10,700,000 for administrative expenses to be transferred to Salaries and Expenses. 

The Committee rejects the budget proposal to charge issuers an 

upfront fee to offset the administrative expenses of the program. 

No detailed explanation has been provided to justify this change 

from prior years or its likely adverse effect on volume and affordable rental housing production. Raising program costs can only diminish the contribution of GNMA in expanding lower cost housing 

opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide shortage of affordable housing, and the goal of increased homeownership, imposing this change to the way GNMA conducts business makes little 

sense. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $55,787,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 68,360,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 55,787,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥12,574,000 

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 

Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, and 

demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions are 

carried out internally through contracts with industry, non-profit 

research organizations, and educational institutions and through 

agreements with State and local governments and other Federal 

agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $55,787,000 for the Office of Policy 

Development and Research. This is the same level of funding as enacted for fiscal year 2006 and $12,574,000 below the budget request. Of the amounts made available, language is included to designate: 

—$30,393,000 for basic research; 

—$20,394,000 for grants to institutions of higher education 

funded under Section 107; and 

—$5,000,000 for the PATH program. The Committee continues language that exempts 50 percent of the funds provided 

from competition. The Committee agrees with the proposal to 

administer this program within Policy Development and Research. The Department is encouraged to incorporate steel and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
156 

other PATH technologies that have high durability and resistance to both termites and mold to the extent possible in its response to natural disasters. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $45,540,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 44,550,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 44,550,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥990,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 

as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing 

and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as ‘‘substantially 

equivalent’’ to HUD with respect to enforcement policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective processing of complaints 

filed under title VIII that are within the jurisdiction of State and 

local fair housing agencies. The Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

(FHIP) alleviates housing discrimination by providing support to 

private nonprofit organizations, State and local government agencies and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 

preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing 

opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $44,550,000 for this account, a decrease of $990,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level and the same as the Administration’s budget request. Of this 

amount, $25,750,000 is for FHAP and $18,800,000 is for FHIP. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, delineated by 

each program and activity. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $150,480,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 114,840,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 114,840,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥35,640,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 

to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction 

activities in housing occupied by low income families. The program 

also provides technical assistance, undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and develops technical 

guidance and regulations in cooperation with the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
157 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $114,840,000 for this account, the 

same as the budget request. Amounts provided are to be allocated 

as follows: 

—$91,674,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control grant 

program to provide assistance to State and local governments 

and Native American tribes for lead-based paint abatement in 

private low income housing; —$8,712,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination Action 

Program), which provides competitive grants to non-profit organizations and the private sector for activities, which leverage 

funds for local lead hazard control programs; —$5,742,000 for technical assistance and support to State 

and local agencies and private property owners; and —$8,712,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for competitive grants for research, standards development, and education 

and outreach activities to address lead-based paint poisoning 

and other housing-related diseases and hazards. 

The Committee continues language delegating the authority and 

responsibility for performing environmental review for the Healthy 

Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies projects and 

programs to governmental entities that are familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and priorities. 

The Committee reminds the Department that all funding provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and Section 305 of the 

Administrative Provisions under this title. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $573,210,000 

Transfers FHA/GNMA ....................................................................... 568,542,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 1,141,752,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 593,893,000 

Transfers ............................................................................................. 567,907,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 1,161,800,000 

Recommended in this bill .................................................................. 573,210,000 

Transfers ............................................................................................. 567,908,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 1,141,118,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥634,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥20,682,000 

This account finances all salaries and related costs associated 

with administering the programs of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, except for the Office of Inspector General 

and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include housing, mortgage credit and secondary market programs, community planning and development programs, departmental management, legal services, field direction and administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends total funding of $1,141,118,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Department. This is $634,000 less 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
158 

than the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount and $20,682,000 below 

the budget request. 

The Committee has provided funding based on the Department’s 

requested level of FTEs and object classes. The Department is limited to the object class levels that are described in the 2007 Congressional Budget Submission (page I–4.) This is the distribution 

that HUD must use unless changes are granted as part of the Department’s Operating Plan. 

Language is included to allow the Department to transfer up to $15,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses to the Working Capital 

Fund after receipt and approval of an Operating Plan change detailing the uses of the transfers and the object classes being reduced in this account. 

Funding for indemnities is at the budget request level but is further limited to non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the 

payment of attorney fees only. Program-related litigation must be 

paid from the individual program office Salary and Expenses allocation. The budget submission must include program-related litigation costs as a separate line item request. 

The Committee is concerned about an April 28, 2006, speech in 

which the Secretary indicated that a contract award was denied 

due to the political views of the contract applicant. Contract award 

decisions must be based solely on providing the best value to the 

taxpayer. The use of contract awards as a means of rewarding political supporters or punishing political opponents is not acceptable. 

The Committee will continue to monitor the Department’s compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In addition, the 

Committee directs GAO to review all contract decisions in which 

the Secretary was personally involved during his time at the Department for adherence to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 

report their findings to the Committees on Appropriations by April 

1, 2007. 

Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.—All Departments within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction are required to submit operating plans and reprogramming letters and reorganization 

proposals for Committee approval. HUD is reminded that operating 

plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any reallocation of 

resources totaling more than $500,000 among any program, project 

or activity as well as to any significant reorganization within offices or the proposed creation or elimination of any program or office, regardless of the dollar amount involved and any reorganization, regardless of the dollar amount involved. Object class changes 

above $500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the 

accompanying report, the approved level for any program, project, 

or activity is that amount detailed for that program, project, or activity in the Department’s annual detailed Congressional submission. These requirements apply to all funds provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make any necessary changes 

during fiscal year 2007 to its current procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied to other agencies funded in the 

bill. 

Budget Submission.—The Committee expects the Department’s 

fiscal year 2008 submission to be submitted in the identical format 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
159 

and continues its direction that strategic planning documents, formats or materials are not to be incorporated into the submission. 

The Committee continues language under Administrative Provisions setting forth such requirements. 

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in 

prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from various accounts for Salaries and Expenses and which requires the Department to implement appropriate funds control and financial management procedures. 

The Committee has noted in previous years the importance of the 

central budget offices of the departments, agencies, and commissions funded under this Act. Therefore, the Committee directs that 

the central budget office within the Chief Financial Office, which 

functions as the central budget and policy office and contributes 

significantly to the Department’s funds control efforts be staffed at 

a level of no less than 61 FTEs of which 11 FTEs are associated 

with the Working Capital Fund and 50 with the Departmental 

Management account. Further, the Committee directs the Department to fill mission critical positions immediately. In addition the 

Committee directs the Department to effectuate the transfer of the 

Working Capital Fund Accounting unit to the Office of Budget, as 

agreed to by the Committee and the Department, no later than 

July 1, 2006. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $195,030,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 219,780,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 100,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥95,030,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥119,780,000 

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development of, 

modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide information technology systems, and for the continuing operation of both 

Department-wide and program-specific information technology systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee remains committed to improving HUD’s information technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD’s and Congress’ ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD’s programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD’s information systems to provide the information necessary to assess program performance and 

ensure effective resource management. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 in direct appropriation for the Working 

Capital Fund to support Department-wide information technology 

system activities, this is $95,030,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

level and $119,780,000 below the budget request. In addition to the 

direct appropriation for Department-wide systems, funds are transferred from various accounts to be used exclusively for programspecific information technology requirements. 

The Committee has included language that precludes the use of 

these or any other funds appropriated previously to the Working 

Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the Working Capital 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
160 

Fund that would be used or transferred to any other entity in HUD 

or elsewhere for the purposes of implementing the Administration’s 

‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative without the Committee’s approval in HUD’s operating plan. The Committee directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and activities should not be reduced or eliminated in 

order to fund other activities inside and outside of HUD without 

the expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute 

or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ............................................................ $81,180,000 $23,760,000 $104,940,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000 

Recommended in this bill .................................................................... 83,240,000 23,760,000 107,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ................................................... +2,060,000 – – – +2,060,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – – – – – – – 

The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide audit 

and investigative functions to identify and correct management and 

administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The audit 

function provides internal audit, contract audit, and inspection 

services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of agency 

operations. The investigative function provides for the detection 

and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $107,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $2,060,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the budget request. Of 

this amount, $23,760,000 is derived from transfers from Federal 

Housing Administration funds. 

Language is included in the bill which: (1) designates amounts 

available to the Inspector General from other accounts; and (2) 

clarifies the authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain personnel issues. 

The Committee is aware that the IG has advocated forcing HUD 

to rescind obligated balances for project-based contracts that have 

already received appropriations and which are obligated on live 

contracts. The Committee is strongly opposed to the rescission of 

funds that may still be needed in the future and which, if enacted, 

could force the Committee to appropriate funds a second time. 

This situation has also occurred in the Section 236 program with 

amounts rescinded in fiscal year 2005 declared in excess only to 

have appropriations required in fiscal year 2006. The IG is instructed to identify in any audit or non-audit related decision, recommendation, or conclusion that refers to excess funds available 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
161 

for rescission those funds which are obligated on active contracts. 

Further, the IG is to include in its operating plan any proposed 

evaluation of active programs, contracts or projects instituted for 

the purpose of identifying excess funds for rescission. 

The Committee also includes language that precludes the audit 

of the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) on any 

terms and conditions other than those currently in effect, and 

which have been in effect for years. GNMA does not belong under 

credit reform rules and has never been subjected to those rules in 

any previous audit. 

The Committee directs the IG to report on its audits and investigative efforts either in place or currently planned, related to the 

use of Departmental funds in the rebuilding efforts in the Gulf 

Coast in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes. The Committee requests that the IG provide an update on their efforts in this regard 

no later than January 1, 2007. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT SALARIES AND

EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $60,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 62,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 62,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 

was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 

(GSEs)—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 

and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 

The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $62,000,000 for OFHEO, as the 

budget requested, to be derived from fees assessed to the GSEs and 

deposited into the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 301 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors, as requested. 

Section 302 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act, 

which was proposed for deletion. 

Section 303 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 

HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

Section 304 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as requested. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
162 

Section 305 continues language requiring funds appropriated to 

be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 306 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 307 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 308 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 309 continues language, carried in previous years, requiring submission of a spending plan for technical assistance, training 

and management improvement activities prior to the expenditure 

of funds. 

Section 310 continues language requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess 

funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 311 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 312 continues language setting certain requirements for 

the Department’s annual congressional justification of appropriations. 

Section 313 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

Section 314 relates to state authority regarding participation on 

housing boards. 

Section 315 continues language in previous acts specifying the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan recipients. 

Section 316 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 317 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for family 

unification upon turnover. 

Section 318 continues language clarifying that the projects selected by HUD for Section 202b assistance prior to December 1, 

2003 are also eligible to use the limited partnership ownership 

structure. No more than three commercial properties are authorized to receive grants under section 202b of the Housing Act of 

1959. 

Section 319 continues language requiring that athletic scholarships for housing shall be considered part of adjusted income for 

purposes of eligibility for Section 8. 

Section 320 continues language requiring priority consideration 

for Moving to Work Demonstration applications from Santa Clara/ 

San Jose and San Bernardino. 

Section 321 clarifies the ability of HUD to have no more than 32 

active Moving to Work Demonstration Agreements at any time. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
163 

Section 322 requires the cancellation of contract authority from 

fiscal years 1974 and earlier upon contract expiration or termination. 

Section 323 continues language requiring the Secretary to maintain Section 8 assistance on certain properties occupied by elderly 

or disabled families. 

Section 324 clarifies that the Government National Mortgage Association is not subject to the accounting and budgetary requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

Section 325 begins the process of modernizing the Federal Housing Administration. These changes will begin the transition of FHA 

from a ridged, one-sizefits-all operating stance to a more flexible 

array of loan offerings designed to meet the individual needs of 

families not served, or ill-served by the private marketplace. 

Section 326 makes a technical correction with regard to COBG 

formula funding to the cities of Alton, Illinois, and Granite City, Illinois. 

The Committee does not recommend several new administrative 

provisions proposed in the budget to amend various housing authorization statutes. 

TITLE IV—THE JUDICIARY 

The funds recommended by the Committee in title IV of the accompanying bill are for the operation and maintenance of United 

States Courts and include the salaries of judges, magistrates, probation and pretrial services officers, and supporting personnel and 

other expenses of the Federal Judiciary. 

In addition to direct appropriations, the Judiciary collects fees 

and has various carryover authorities. The Judiciary uses these 

non-appropriated funds to offset its direct appropriation requirements. Consistent with prior year practices, the Committee expects 

the Judiciary to submit a financial plan, allocating all sources of 

available funds including appropriations, fee collections, and carryover balances. The Judiciary should consider this financial plan to 

be the baseline for determining if reprogramming notification is required. The Committee expects the plan to be submitted within 90 

days after enactment of this Act. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $60,143,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 63,405,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 63,405,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +3,262,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,405,000 for 

fiscal year 2007 for the salaries and expenses of personnel and the 

cost of operating the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the 

building and grounds. The recommendation is $3,262,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 level and is the same as the request for this account. The recommendation provides inflationary and other standard adjustments and supports additional three staff to support information technology (IT) operations of the Court. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
164 

For the second year, the Committee has included bill language making $2,000,000 available until expended for the purpose of 

making information technology investments. The Committee directs the Supreme Court to provide an annual report, to be included in its budget justification materials, showing information 

technology carry-over balances and describing each expenditure 

made in the previous fiscal year and planned expenditures in the 

budget year. 

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $5,568,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 12,959,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,959,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +7,391,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,959,000 for 

fiscal year 2007 for personnel and other services relating to the Supreme Court building and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of the Capitol. The recommendation is the same as the request and $7,391,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. The Committee expects to be informed of any changes to the scope and projected completion date of the original building modernization 

project. Language in the bill allows funds to remain available until 

expended. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $23,780,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 26,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 26,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,220,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥300,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2007 for the salaries and expenses of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The recommendation is 

$2,220,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and $300,000 

below the request. 

The Committee has included funding for leased office space for 

senior judges. However, prior to the obligation of these funds, the 

Committee directs the Court to report back to the Committee the 

employment status of each of the five judges for which this space 

is needed. The Committee does not support the leasing of additional space for any other purpose. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $15,345,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 16,182,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,182,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +837,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
165 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,182,000 for 

fiscal year 2007 for the salaries and expenses of the United States 

Court of International Trade. The Committee recommendation is 

the same as the budget request and $837,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 level. 

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL

SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,308,345,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 4,687,244,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,556,114,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +247,769,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥131,130,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,556,114,000 

for the operations of the regional courts of appeals, district courts, 

bankruptcy courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and probation and 

pretrial services offices. The recommendation is $247,769,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and $131,130,000 below the request. 

The Committee understands that the Judiciary’s staffing, operations and maintenance, and information technology resources are 

allocated to the courts according to formulas that are approved by 

the Judicial Conference and equitably distribute resources based on 

the workload of each district. The Committee believes this is the 

optimal method of making such allocations and expects the Judiciary to continue to allocate its resources using this system. The 

Committee also expects the Administrative Office to periodically 

update the formulas to ensure their accuracy. 

The Committee supports the fiscal year 2007 request for new 

magistrate judges and support staff needed to meet increased Federal Judiciary requirements as a result of higher caseloads on the 

southwest border of the United States. The Committee provides 

adquate funding to fill the approved positions in New Mexico, California, and Colorado. 

The Committee is concerned with the Judiciary’s practice of including one-time windfalls of offsetting collections and prior year 

carryover funds in the fiscal year 2007 funding base. The Committee notes that such an approach allows the Judiciary to present 

a budget request without otherwise necessary cost savings and 

budgetary tradeoffs that are expected of Executive Branch agencies 

in this Act. The Committee urges the Federal Judiciary to discontinue this practice in developing its fiscal year 2008 budget submission. 

From funds appropriated under this heading, the Committee provides $500,000 for the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling 

Screening, Assessment and Pre-Trial Diversion Program within the 

drug courts and juvenile justice diversion programs of the State of 

Florida. The Committee intends for these funds to support statewide expansion of the program. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
166 

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $3,795,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 3,952,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,952,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +157,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a reimbursement of $3,952,000 for 

fiscal year 2007 from the Special Fund to cover expenses of the 

Claims Court associated with processing cases under the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This amount is $157,000 

above the amount available in fiscal year 2006 and equal to the request. 

DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $709,830,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 803,879,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 750,033,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +40,203,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥53,846,000 

This account provides funding for the operation of the Federal 

Public Defender and Community Defender organizations and for 

compensation and reimbursement of expenses of panel attorneys 

appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) for representation in criminal cases. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $750,033,000 for 

fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is $40,203,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level and $53,846,000 below the request. 

FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $60,705,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 63,079,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 63,079,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,374,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,079,000 for payments to jurors, which is $2,374,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

level and the same as the request. 

COURT SECURITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $368,280,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 410,334,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 400,334,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +32,054,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥10,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,334,000 for 

Court Security in fiscal year 2007 to provide for necessary expenses 

of security and protective services in courtrooms and adjacent 

areas. This is an increase of $32,054,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

level and $10,000,000 below the request. 

The recommendation provides for inflationary increases, 34 additional court security officers, and half of the 50 percent increase requested for additional equipment and security systems. The ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
167 

mittee notes concern over the high cost to purchase 340 digital 

video recorders. 

Bill language is included allowing up to $15,000,000 to remain 

available until expended. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $69,559,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 75,333,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 73,800,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +4,241,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥1,533,000 

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) provides administrative and management support to the United States 

Courts, including the probation and bankruptcy systems. It also 

supports the Judicial Conference of the United States in determining Federal Judiciary policies, in developing methods to allow 

the courts to conduct business efficiently and economically, and in 

enhancing the use of information technology in the courts. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $73,800,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the AO, which is $4,241,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 level and $1,533,000 below the request. 

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $22,127,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 23,787,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 23,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,373,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥287,000 

The Center improves the management of Federal Judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and 

staff, and research, evaluation, and planning assistance for the 

courts and the Judicial Conference. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,500,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Federal Judicial Center for fiscal 

year 2007, which is $1,373,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level and 

$287,000 below the request. 

JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS

PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $40,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 58,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 58,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +17,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

These funds cover the estimated annuity payments to be made 

to retired bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, Claims Court 

judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased judicial officers. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
168 

The Committee provides $58,300,000 for payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund, the Judicial Survivors’ Annuities 

Fund, and the Claims Court Judges Retirement Fund for fiscal 

year 2007. This amount is the same as the budget request and 

$17,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006 level. These payments are 

considered mandatory for budget scorekeeping purposes. 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $14,256,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 15,740,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,244,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥240,000 

The purpose of the Commission is to establish, review, and revise 

sentencing guidelines, policies, and practices for the Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required to monitor the 

operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary 

changes to the Congress. 

The Committee recommends $15,500,000 for the salaries and expenses of the United States Sentencing Commission for fiscal year 

2007, which is $1,244,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation 

and $240,000 below the request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

Section 401. The Committee continues language to permit funds 

in the bill for salaries and expenses for the Judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

Section 402. The Committee continues language that permits up 

to 5 percent of any appropriation made available for fiscal year 

2007 to be transferred between Judiciary appropriations accounts 

provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 

percent or increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer 

except in certain circumstances. In addition, the language provides 

that any such transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of 

funds under sections 805 and 810 of the accompanying bill and 

shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section. 

Sec. 403. The Committee continues language authorizing not to 

exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation 

expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

Sec. 404. The Committee continues language requiring a financial plan for the Judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 405. The Committee includes language amending the Judicial Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
169 

TITLE V—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL PAYMENTS

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $32,868,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 35,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 35,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,232,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $35,100,000 

for the resident tuition support program, $2,232,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and the same as the budget request. 

Of the amounts made available, not more than $1,200,000 may be 

used for administrative expenses. 

The Resident Tuition Support program was created by the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to provide District college-bound students the opportunity to expand their higher education choices. The program receives its funding through a Federal 

appropriation which is deposited into a dedicated account under 

the control of the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer. 

These funds are to be used on behalf of eligible District of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the difference between 

in-State and out-of-State tuition at eligible public and private institutions of higher education. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY

COSTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $13,365,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 8,533,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,533,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥4,832,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $8,533,000 for 

emergency planning and security costs, $4,832,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 appropriation and the same as the budget request. These 

funds are for emergency planning and security costs related to the 

presence of the Federal government in the District of Columbia and 

surrounding jurisdictions. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $216,723,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 196,629,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 219,629,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,906,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +23,000,000 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $219,629,000 

for operation of the District of Columbia Courts, $2,906,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and $23,000,000 above the budget request. This amount includes $9,401,000 for the Court of Appeals, $89,646,000 for the Superior Court, $46,653,000 for the 

Court System, and $73,929,000 for capital improvements to courthouse facilities. The Committee recommends an increase of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
170 

$23,000,000 over the request for facilities improvements to meet 

the costs of renovating the Old Courthouse, similar to recommendations and reprogramming actions the Committee has taken with 

the General Services Administration to meet the escalating construction costs affecting other Federal courthouses. 

DEFENDER SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $43,560,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 43,475,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 43,475,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥85,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends $43,475,000 for Defender Services 

in District of Columbia Courts, $85,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

appropriation and the same as the budget request. The Committee 

continues to allow funds provided to the District of Colombia 

Courts to be used for Defender Services, with a modification. The 

Committee caps this authority at $2,000,000, or roughly 5 percent 

of the Defender Services appropriation, for fiscal year 2007. These 

funds provide payment for counsel appointed in proceedings in the 

Family Court of the Superior Court and under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power 

of Attorney Act of 1986. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER

SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 1 ....................................................... $169,839,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 181,653,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 181,653,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +11,814,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1 Represents the funds for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia and not the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, which the Committee proposes funding 

under a separate account in fiscal year 2007. 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $181,653,000 

for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), 

$11,814,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and the same 

as the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $135,457,000 is 

for the Community Supervision Program and $46,196,000 is for the 

Pretrial Services Agency, and not to exceed a total of $560,000 is 

for information technology infrastructure enhancement acquisitions. The increase in funds over the prior year is due to (1) the 

increased capacity and operations at Karrick Hall (the District’s 

Re-entry and Sanctions Center) and (2) an effort to reduce the ratio 

of defendants to pretrial services officers from 124:1 to 

aqpproximately 100:1. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
171 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 1 ....................................................... $29,535,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 32,710,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 32,710,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +3,175,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1 In fiscal year 2006, the Committee funded the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) 

through the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia. 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $32,710,000 

for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 

(PDSDC), $3,175,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and 

the same as the budget request. In prior years, PDSDC was funded 

as a part of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 

(CSOSA). While PDSDC and CSOSA have established a cordial relationship, the missions of the two organizations are not the same. 

The PDSDC, like public defender agencies of other jurisdictions, 

should have an independent budget submission and appropriation. 

Therefore, the Committee has revised the account structure for 

CSOSA and PDSDC and includes a general provision (section 530) 

which creates an independent process public defender service in 

terms of budgeting and funds execution. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND

SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $6,930,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 7,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +70,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $7,000,000 to 

the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), 

$70,000 above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and the same as 

the budget request. These funds are to continue implementation of 

the Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Plan and are to be 

matched 100 percent by WASA. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR BIOTERRORISM AND FORENSICS LABS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,950,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥4,950,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee’s recommendation does not include funds for the 

bioterrorism lab consistent with the budget request. In prior years, 

the Committee has provided almost $40,000,000 towards the design 

and planning of a forensic sciences laboratory facility for the District. The Committee is supportive of this endeavor and encourages 

the District to continue with the planning and site selection process. Based on information from District officials, construction of the 

facility would commence in fiscal year 2008. The Committee will 

consider funds for construction during the fiscal year 2008 appropriations. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
172 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR NAVY YARD METRO STATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... $20,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥20,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee’s recommendation does not include $20,000,000 

for expansion of the Navy Yard Metro station as recommended in 

the budget request. Funds for this purpose were not requested or 

provided in the previous year. The Committee makes this decision 

without prejudice, but encourages the District to work with the 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the General 

Services Administration to create a cost sharing proposal similar to 

the arrangement used to finance the New York Avenue Station. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CENTRAL LIBRARY AND BRANCH LOCATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... $30,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... – – – 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥30,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation does not include funds for the 

costs associated with construction of a new central library as proposed in the budget request. The Committee supports the concept 

and encourages the District of Columbia to further refine the proposal, including cost estimates, financing, construction plans, and 

a plan for the current library building. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING

COUNCIL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,287,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,300,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +13,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,300,000 to 

the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC), $13,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and the same as the budget request. These funds are to support initiatives related to the coordination of Federal and local criminal justice resources in the District 

of Columbia. Similar to the prior year, the Committee directs the 

CJCC to submit annual performance measures in an annual report. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $28,908,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥23,908,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +5,000,000 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $5,000,000 for 

the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, $23,908,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
173 

below the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and $5,000,000 above the 

budget request. These funds are for education, public safety, 

health, economic development, and infrastructure initiatives in the 

District of Columbia. The Committee directs each grantee to submit a comprehensive budget and a report on the activities to be 

carried out with the funds no later than March 15, 2007. The District CFO will submit a comprehensive report no later than April 

30, 2007, to the Committees on Appropriations highlighting which 

grantees did not comply with the reporting requirements. The 

Committe requires that any funds to these grantees must be spent 

primarily in the District of Columbia to benefit District residents. 

National Children’s Alliance ................................................................. $200,000 

Library Improvements ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

STEEED Youth Education and Recreation Program .......................... 50,000 

Excel Institute ........................................................................................ 950,000 

Capitol Area Food Bank ........................................................................ 125,000 

Southeastern University ....................................................................... 250,000 

N Street Village ..................................................................................... 400,000 

Georgetown Metro Connection .............................................................. 200,000 

Perry School ........................................................................................... 50,000 

DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation ..................... 125,000 

MenzFit .................................................................................................. 100,000 

Food and Friends ................................................................................... 150,000 

Whitman-Walker Clinic ........................................................................ 375,000 

College Bound, Inc. ................................................................................ 150,000 

Everybody Wins ..................................................................................... 50,000 

Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ............................................................ 100,000 

Eastern Market ...................................................................................... 100,000 

Metropolitan Police Department bullet proof vests ............................ 300,000 

GWU Cancer Institute .......................................................................... 325,000 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $39,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 40,800,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 40,800,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $40,800,000 

for school improvement, $1,200,000 above fiscal year 2006 and the 

same as the budget request. These funds are allocated as follows: 

$13,000,000 to improve public school education in the District of 

Columbia, $13,000,000 to expand quality charter schools, and 

$14,800,000 to the Secretary of Education for opportunity scholarships for low-income children in the District of Columbia, of which 

$1,800,000 is for administrative expenses. 

While the Committee is satisfied with the overall financial health 

of the District, the Committee is very concerned about the dismal 

state of the District’s public schools. By the District’s own data, 

families with children are moving out of the District, children in 

the District are leaving public schools for private or charter 

schools, and student achievement test scores are dropping. The 

U.S. Department of Education has classified the District of Columbia Public School system (DCPS) as ‘‘high risk’’ for failing to properly account for Federal education grants. Children and parents in 

DC deserve better. 

The District and DCPS are facing at a minimum three major 

challenges: student achievement scores, fiscal responsibility, and a 

massive capital infrastructure investment. In the view of the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
174 

mittee, the DCPS should focus its efforts on providing quality education to DC students and consent to the establishment of other 

independent agencies to oversee the other challenges. The Committee is not assuming to supervise the school system in fiscal year 

2007, but instead strongly urges DCPS to take action this year to 

restore confidence in the school system before Federal action becomes necessary. 

The Committee directs DCPS Chief Financial Officer to take a 

greater role in overseeing the management and accounting of all 

DCPS funds and assets, similar to the independent and confirmed 

position of the DC Chief Financial Officer. The recent classification 

of ‘‘high risk’’ by the U.S. Department of Education demonstrates 

the need for greater financial accountability, separate from the Superintendent and the School Board. 

The Committee recommends DCPS create a team to thoroughly 

assess the capital infrastructure holdings of the system. The Committee is not advocating building closure as an ultimate goal, but 

rather a realistic inventory of the buildings, the investment required to bring each facility up to a quality standard, and a good 

common sense plan to meet the needs of the students and the community. The Committee commends DCPS for starting the process 

and the commitment to address the capital infrastructure issues 

facing the school system. However, the Committee suggests that a 

review of the DCPS facilities is an involved task requiring more expertise in this area rather than establishing a committee within 

the system, thus diverting resources away from education. 

The Committee recognizes that the Federal funds provided to 

DCPS in this bill are minimal compared to the funds provided by 

the U.S. Department of Education and the local funds from DC taxpayers. However, the economic growth and stability of the District 

is at risk without a healthy public school system. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

The Committee recommends a total of $8,996,915,000 for the operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in the fiscal year 2007 proposed budget and financial plan submitted to the 

Congress by the Government of the District of Columbia in June 

2006. Of the total, $5,079,758,000 is from local funds, 

$2,011,321,000 is from Federal grant funds, $1,897,951,000 is from 

other funds, $7,885,000 is from private funds, and $170,052,000 is 

from prior year funds. In addition, an increase of $2,400,757,000 is 

for capital construction projects. The Committee directs that any 

changes to the financial plan as submitted by the District must follow the reprogramming guidelines. 

With the expanded authority to use District funds, the Committee expects the District government to first and foremost address capital infrastructure needs. 

The Committee commends the DC leadership on the continued financial health of the District. The coming year will bring a different slate of leaders to the District. The Committee expects the 

future administration and council to adhere to the same fiscal discipline and responsibility demonstrated in recent years, and the 

sound principles set forth by the Chief Financial Officer. Consistent 

with last year’s report, the Committee expects the District government to use the flexible authority allowed in sections 523, 524, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
175 

525 to first and foremost address capital infrastructure and other 

one-time needs. 

The Committee does not recommend funds for a new U.S. Coast 

Guard headquarters at the St. Elizabeths West Campus as proposed in the General Services Administration budget request. At 

the April 6, 2006 Committee hearing, the District leadership expressed great concern and frustration with the financial structural 

imbalance of the District. In the opinion of the Committee, turning 

the St. Elizabeths West Campus into a Federal building compound 

would do little to bring balance to the District, and little to bring 

lasting investment to the surrounding neighborhood and ward. The 

Committee strongly encourages the District to consider alternative 

development plans for the West Campus to address neighborhood 

needs such as mixed-use development, mixed-income housing, retail, grocery, services, and vocational training or education facilities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 501. The Committee continues the provision that specifies that an appropriation for a particular purpose or object shall 

be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 

said purpose or object. 

Section 502. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

funds for travel and payment of dues. 

Section 503. The Committee continues the provision that appropriates funds for refunding overpayments of taxes collected and for 

paying settlements and judgments against the District of Columbia 

government. 

Section 504. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of appropriation for publicity or propaganda purposes. 

Section 505. The Committee modifies the provision that establishes reprogramming and transfer requirements with respect to 

notification requirements. 

Section 506. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits use of funds only to the objects for which the appropriations 

were made. 

Section 507. The Committee continues the provision that clarifies 

the pay setting authority for District employees as the District’s 

Merit Personnel Act rather than title 5 of the United States Code. 

Section 508. The Committee continues the provision that directs 

the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit new fiscal year 

2007 revenue estimates as of the end of such quarter. 

Section 509. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the District government from renewing or extending sole 

source contracts without opening them to the competitive bidding 

process as set forth in section 303 of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985. 

Section 510. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of Federal funds for salaries, expenses, or other costs 

associated with the offices of U.S. Senator or Representative under 

section 4(d) of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979. 

Section 511. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits Federal funds made available in this Act from being used to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
176 

implement or enforce any system of registration for unmarried cohabitating couples. 

Section 512. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the mayor to accept, obligate, and expend Federal, private, and 

other grants received by the District government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this Act. 

Section 513. The Committee continues the provision that restricts the use of official vehicles to official duties and not between 

a residence and workplace, except in the case of a police officer who 

resides in the District of Columbia at the discretion of the Chief, 

an officer or employee of the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical 

Services Department who resides in the District of Columbia and 

is on call 24 hours a day, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, 

and the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. 

Section 514. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of funds for the audit of the District government’s 

annual financial statements unless the DC Inspector General either conducts, or contracts for, the audit. 

Section 515. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of appropriated funds by the Corporation Counsel or 

any other officer or entity of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks to require 

Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 516. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of any funds in this Act to carry out any program 

of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug. 

Section 517. The Committee continues the provision that requires the Chief Financial Officers of the District of Columbia to 

certify that they understand the duties and restrictions applicable 

to their agency as a result of this Act. 

Section 518. The Committee continues the provision that includes a ‘‘conscience clause’’ on legislation that pertains to contraceptive coverage by health insurance plans. 

Section 519. The Committee continues the provision that requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit quarterly 

reports on various issues pertaining to the District of Columbia. 

Section 520. The Committee continues the provision that requires the CFO to submit a revised appropriated funds operating 

budget in the format of the budget that the District government 

submitted pursuant to section 442 of the DC Home Rule Act for all 

agencies no later than 30 calendar days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Section 521. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of any funds in the Act to: (1) pay the fees of an attorney who represents a party in an action or any attorney who defends any action, including an administrative proceeding, brought 

against D.C. Public Schools under the Individuals With Disabilities 

Act (IDEA) in excess of $4,000 for that action; (2) pay the fees of 

an attorney or firm whom the CFO determines to have a pecuniary 

interest, either through an attorney, officer or employee of the firm, 

in any special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education service providers; and (3) require all savings to be 

used to expand special education services within the District. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
177 

Section 522. The Committee continues the provision that requires attorneys in special education cases brought under IDEA to 

comply with several reporting requirements and allow the Inspector General to conduct investigations to determine the accuracy of 

the certifications. 

Section 523. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for appropriations in this Act to be increased by no more than 

$42,000,000 from unexpended general funds, and may be used only 

for one-time expenditures, to avoid deficit spending, for debt reduction, for program needs, or to avoid revenue shortfalls. 

Section 524. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the District to Spend ‘‘Other-Type Funds’’ under certain conditions. 

Section 525. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for short-term borrowing from the emergency and contingency reserve funds established under section 450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 98–198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 

1–204.50a) under certain circumstances. 

Section 526. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to change the legality of marijuana use. 

Section 527. The Committee continues the provision relating to 

abortion. 

Section 528. The Committee continues the provision granting authority to the CFO with respect personnel and preparing financial 

statements audits. The Committee directs the CFO to report to the 

Committees on Appropriations 30 days after utilizing this authority. 

Section 529. The Committee continues the provision exempting 

the CFO from certain provisions of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act. 

Section 530. The Committee recommends a new provision which 

allows the Public Defender Services of the District of Columbia to 

operate outside of the Court Supervised Offender Services Agency 

for budgeting. 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision that makes 

technical corrections to Public Law 109–115 regarding ‘‘Federal 

Payment for School Improvement’’. 

Section 532. The Committee continues the provision which limits 

references to ‘‘this Act’’ as referring to only this title. 

TITLE VI—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

These funds provide for the compensation of the President as 

well as official expenses of the Executive Office of the President, as 

authorized by title 3, United States Code. 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

These funds provide for the compensation of the President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
178 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 

Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance of 

$50,000. These are the same as amounts as appropriated in fiscal 

year 2006 and the same as requested by the President. The bill 

specifies that any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1552. 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $53,292,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 51,952,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 51,952,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥1,340,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office 

supports staff and administrative services necessary for the direct 

support of the President, including costs for the Homeland Security 

Council. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,952,000 for 

the White House Office, which is $1,340,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2006 level and the same as in the Administration’s request. 

This account also includes up to $1,500,000 for the Privacy and 

Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $12,312,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 12,041,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,041,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥271,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

These funds provide for the care, maintenance, and operation of 

the Executive Residence, including official and ceremonial functions of the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,041,000 for 

the operating expenses of the Executive Residence, a decrease of 

$271,000 from the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and 

the same as the amounts requested by the President. The bill includes the same restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of 

the Executive Residence as were enacted in fiscal year 2006. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
179 

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,683,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 1,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥83,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

To provide for the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Executive Residence at the White House; a separate account was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track expenditures for 

capital improvement projects at the Executive Residence at the 

White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000 for White House Repair and Restoration, a decrease of $83,000 below 

the amount enacted in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the 

amount requested by the President. 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 4,002,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,002,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national economy 

and its various segments, advises the President on economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth and stability, 

appraises economic programs and policies of the Federal Government, and assists in preparation of the annual Economic Report of 

the President to Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,002,000 for 

the Council of Economic Advisers, an increase of $2,000 from the 

amount enacted in fiscal year 2006 and the same as requested by 

the President. 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $3,465,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 3,385,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,385,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥80,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Office of Policy Development supports the National Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying out 

their responsibilities to advise and assist the President in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of economic and doVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
180 

mestic policy. The Office of Policy Development also provides support for other domestic policy development and implementation activities, as directed by the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,385,000 for 

the Office of Policy Development, a decrease of $80,000 from the 

amount enacted in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the request. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $8,618,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 8,405,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,405,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥213,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The National Security Council advises the President on the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,405,000 for 

the National Security Council, a decrease of $213,000 from the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and the same as requested 

by the President. 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $88,429,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 1 ..................................................... 102,417,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 91,393,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,964,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥11,024,000 1Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ‘‘The White House’’. 

The Office of Administration is responsible for providing cost-effective, administrative services to the Executive Office of the President. These services, defined by Executive Order 12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel, library and records services, information 

management systems support, and general office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $91,393,000 for 

the Office of Administration, an increase of $2,964,000 above the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and a decrease of 

$11,024,000 below the amount requested by the President. 

Enterprise services program.—The Committee continues the Enterprise Services Program and fully funds the Office of Administration as requested except for funds for General Services Administration (GSA) rental payments for the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(ONDCP). The Committee recommends funding for OMB rent 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
181 

($7,405,000) and ONDCP rent ($3,619,000) under their respective 

headings for ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ and provides the same levels 

of funding as the President’s request. The Committee has provided 

the remaining level of GSA rent and all miscellaneous costs in the 

Enterprise Services Program, as requested. 

The Committee recommends funding for all Office of Administration activities at the requested level for each activity in fiscal year 

2007. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $76,161,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 68,780,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 76,185,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +24,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +7,405,000 

The Office of Management and Budget assists the President in 

the discharge of budgetary, economic, management, and other executive responsibilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,185,000 for 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an increase of 

$24,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and 

$7,405,000 above the amount requested by the President. 

The Committee recommends $7,405,000 under this heading for 

rental payments to GSA instead of providing these funds under the 

heading ‘‘Office of Administration.’’ 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $3,000 for reception 

and representation expenses as requested by the President. 

‘‘E-Gov’’ initiative.—The Committee continues to express serious 

concerns about the continued forced implementation of this initiative on departments and agencies. Many aspects of this initiative 

are fundamentally flawed, contradict underlying program statutory 

requirements and have stifled innovation by forcing conformity to 

an arbitrary government standard. Therefore, the Committee continues to include a government-wide general provision that precludes the use of funds for the ‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative prior to consultation with the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee urges 

OMB to work directly with the individual subcommittees in advance so that approved initiatives can move forward without disruption. 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $26,639,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 23,309,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 26,928,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +289,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +3,619,000 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 

of 1998 charges the Office of National Drug Control Policy, estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
182 

lished by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, with developing policies, objectives and priorities for the National Drug Control Program as defined by the Act and Executive Order 12880. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,928,000 for 

the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), an increase 

of $289,000 from the enacted fiscal year 2006 level and a 

$3,619,000 increase over the President’s request. 

The Committee recommends $3,619,000 under this heading for 

rental payments to GSA instead of providing these funds under the 

heading ‘‘Office of Administration.’’ 

The Committee recommends funding to support the requested 

level of 123 FTEs. 

The Committee is concerned about the ONDCP’s programmatic 

priorities as reflected in its 2007 budget request. Specifically, the 

Committee rejects again in 2007 the proposal to move the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program to the Department of Justice. Additionally, the Committee notes its concern that 

the ONDCP has resisted focusing its programs to fighting the 

alarming rise in domestic methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse. The Committee cannot ensure future funding for 

ONDCP’s priorities if ONDCP continues to ignore the concerns of 

Congress. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $29,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 9,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 19,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥10,100,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +10,000,000 

Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of Division C of Public Law 105–277), 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center serves as the central counterdrug research and development organization for the 

United States Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,600,000 for 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, a decrease of 

$10,100,000 from the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels and an increase of $10,000,000 over the President’s request. Included in the 

appropriation is $9,600,000 for supply and demand reduction research as requested by the President and $10,000,000 for the Technology Transfer Program, which was terminated in the President’s 

request. 

The Committee notes that ONDCP did not include in its fiscal 

year 2007 budget submission an analysis of options and recommendations for the future course of counterdrug technology research as required in the fiscal year 2006 House report. The Committee, therefore, again directs the Director of the ONDCP to 

transmit this report with the 2008 budget submission. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
183 

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $224,730,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 227,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,270,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +227,000,000 

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program 

was established by the Director of ONDCP pursuant to section 

1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and now as reauthorized 

by section 707 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 

1998 to provide assistance to Federal and State and local law enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected 

by drug trafficking. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $227,000,000 for 

the HIDTA Program, an increase of $2,270,000 over the enacted 

fiscal year 2006 level and $227,000,000 above the President’s request. The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to shift 

HIDTA funding to the Department of Justice. 

The HIDTA program serves to enhance and coordinate drug control effects among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking, and the Committee supports a vigorous HIDTA program. To achieve its mission, 

the HIDTA program must continue to enhance individual and national performance and work to develop a system that enhances the 

synchronization of drug control efforts. 

When complying with section 602, the Committee expects that 

HIDTAs existing in fiscal year 2007 shall receive funding at least 

equal to the fiscal year 2006 initial allocation level. As ONDCP reviews candidates for new HIDTA funding, the Committee recommends increased funding for the Appalachian, Central Valley, 

and Lake County HIDTAs. 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $192,951,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 212,160,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 194,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,049,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥18,160,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $194,000,000 for 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs, an increase of $1,049,000 

above the enacted fiscal year 2006 level and $18,160,000 below the 

President’s request. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

for fiscal year 2007: 

Drug Free Communities ........................................................................ $80,000,000 

National Drug Court Institute .............................................................. 1,000,000 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws .................................... 1,000,000 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ...................................... 100,000,000 

United States Anti-Doping Agency ...................................................... 8,500,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
184 

World Anti-Doping Agency Dues .......................................................... 1,500,000 

Performance Measures Development ................................................... 1,980,000 

The Committee directs ONDCP to maintain funding for non-advertising services for the Media Campaign at a level not less than 

the fiscal year 2003 ratio of service funding to total funds and to 

continue the corporate outreach program as it operated prior to its 

cancellation. 

The Committee has supported past education efforts to demonstrate the consequences of using performance-enhancing drugs. 

Although this program was successful, all professional sports, including Major League Baseball, must undertake a comprehensive 

campaign to educate youth on the dangers of steroid use. Professional sports must work closely with U.S. Anti-doping Administration (USADA) and other organizations to educate high school, middle school and grade school children on the dangers of performance 

enhancing drugs. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $990,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 11,789,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +10,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥10,789,000 

These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated emergencies in support of the national interest, security, or defense. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for unanticipated needs, 

an increase $10,000 above the enacted fiscal year 2006 level and 

$10,789,000 below the President’s request. Expenditures from this 

account may be authorized by the President. 

(RESCISSION)

The President’s request includes a rescission of $11,789,000 from 

Public Law 101–130 and 103–211 as provided to respond to various 

natural disasters. The Committee does not include this rescission 

of emergency funds to offset non-emergency appropriations. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE OFFICIAL

RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $4,410,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 4,352,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,352,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥58,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

These funds support the official duties and functions of the Office 

of the Vice President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,352,000 for 

the Office of the Vice President, a decrease of $58,000 below the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
185 

amount enacted for fiscal year 2006 and the same as requested by 

the President. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $322,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 317,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 317,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥5,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

These funds support the care and operation of the Vice President’s residence and specifically support equipment, furnishings, 

dining facilities, and services required to perform and discharge the 

Vice President’s official duties, functions and obligations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $317,000 for the 

Operating Expenses of the Vice President’s residence, a decrease of 

$5,000 below the amount enacted in fiscal year 2006 and the same 

as requested by the President. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

Section 601. The Committee continues language to permit the 

transfer of not to exceed 10 percent of funds from certain offices 

within the Executive Office of the President. 

Section 602. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

a financial plan by the Director of the ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2007. 

TITLE VII—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE

BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $5,881,590 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 5,956,590 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,956,590 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +75,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These 

guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered by these laws are 

readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board is also responsible for developing standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information technology used by Federal agencies. In addition, the Access Board enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, and provides 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
186 

training and technical assistance on the guidelines and standards 

it develops. 

The Access Board also has additional responsibilities under the 

Help America Vote Act. The Access Board serves on the Board of 

Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,956,590 for the operations of the 

Access Board, an increase of $75,000 over fiscal year 2006 and the 

same as the budget request. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $62,370,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 62,370,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 62,370,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent Federal regulatory agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 

consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall goals 

are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform safety standards 

for consumer products, minimizing conflicting State and local regulations; and to promote research into prevention of product-related 

deaths, illnesses, and injuries. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $62,370,000 for fiscal year 2007, the 

same as both the budget request and fiscal year 2006. The bill also 

includes language that limits official reception and representation 

expenses to no more than $500 in fiscal year 2007. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $14,058,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 16,908,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,908,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,850,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was established by 

the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) and is charged with implementing provisions of that Act relating to the reform of federal 

election administration throughout the United States, including the 

development of voluntary voting systems guidelines, the certification and testing of voting systems, studies of election administraVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
187 

tion issues, and the implementation of election reform payments to 

states as well as grant programs related to election reform. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,908,000 for the EAC, an increase of $2,850,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. 

The Committee also provides the budget request for research and 

development activities, including the transfer of $4,950,000 to the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

The Committee urges the EAC to provide $250,000 for the HAVA 

college program. This program, first implemented during the 2004 

election, recruits and trains young people in colleges, universities, 

and community colleges to serve as nonpartisan pollworkers, helping to address a nationwide pollworker shortage. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $30,690,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 26,256,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 26,256,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥4,434,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 

1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation account for 

appropriations for each Office of Inspector General of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget request, provides for the transfer of $26,256,000 from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 

FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector General 

for fiscal year 2007. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $54,153,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 57,138,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 57,138,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,985,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Commission administers the disclosure of campaign finance 

information, enforces limitations on contributions and expenditures, supervises the public funding of Presidential elections, and 

performs other tasks related to Federal elections. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
188 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $57,138,000 for 

the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an increase of $2,985,000 

over amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the 

budget request. 

Administrative Fine Program.—The Committee commends the 

FEC on the implementation of the Administrative Fine Program, 

which authorizes the FEC to assess fines for reporting violations 

and has been successful in leading to the decrease in number of 

late or non-filed reports. The Committee is concerned, however, 

that this program has not yet been permanently authorized. In 

fact, the Committee extended the Program’s authorization to December 31, 2008, in the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 

Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–115). Therefore, the Committee directs the FEC to work with the authorizing committee of 

jurisdiction to achieve permanent authorization for the Administrative Fine Program. The FEC should work with the authorizers of 

jurisdiction during fiscal year 2007, prior to the Subcommittee 

markup of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill. 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $25,213,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 25,218,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,218,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +5,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

Established by title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) serves as a neutral 

arbiter in the labor activities of non-postal Federal employees, Departments and agencies, and Federal unions on matters outlined in 

the Act, including collective bargaining and the settlement of disputes. Establishment of the FLRA gives full recognition to the role 

of the Federal Government as an employer. Under the Foreign 

Service Act of 1980, the FLRA also addresses similar issues affecting Foreign Service personnel by providing full staff support for the 

Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel and the Foreign Service 

Labor Relations Board. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,218,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority, an increase of $5,000 above 

the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the 

budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
189 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $20,294,010 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 21,474,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 21,474,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,179,990 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in 

1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the 

regulation of international waterborne commerce of the United 

States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that vessel 

owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay judgment for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of a 

cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. It monitors the activities of 

ocean common carriers, who operate in the U.S./foreign commerce 

to ensure just and reasonable practices, maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement program, monitors the laws and practices 

of foreign governments which could have a discriminatory or other 

impacts on shipping conditions in the U.S., among other activities. 

The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq.), the Foreign 

Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq.), and 

section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. app. 876). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $21,474,000 for the Federal Maritime Commission, the same as the budget request and $1,179,990 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2006. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($7,752,745,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (8,046,666,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (7,740,527,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (¥12,218,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (¥306,139,000) 

The Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) finances the activities of the 

Public Buildings Service, which provides space and services for 

Federal agencies in a relationship similar to that of landlord and 

tenant. The FBF, established in 1975, replaces direct appropriations by using income derived from rent assessments, which approximate commercial rates for comparable space and services. The 

Committee makes funds available through a process of placing limitations on obligations from the FBF as a way of allocating funds 

for various FBF activities. The Committee may also appropriate 

funds into the FBF as a way of covering the difference between the 

total revenues coming into the FBF and the total limitation on the 

expenditure from the FBF. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
190 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $7,740,527,000 for 

the Fund, a decrease of $12,218,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, a decrease of $306,139,000 below the request. 

To carry out the purposes of the Federal Buildings Fund established pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 592), the 

revenues and collections deposited into the Fund, shall be available 

for necessary expenses in the aggregate amount of $7,740,527,000 

of which: 

(1) $383,956,000 for construction (including funds for sites and 

expenses and associated design and construction services) of additional projects at the following locations: 

New Construction: 

Arizona: Nogales, Nogales West Border Station, $9,836,000. 

San Luis, Border Station II, $42,029,000. 

California: Calexico, Calexico West Border Station, $14,350,000. 

District of Columbia: 

For transfer to the Navy for certain permanent relocation expenses pursuant to section 1(e) of Public Law 108–268, 

$52,835,000. 

Remote Delivery Facility II, $39,612,000. 

St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure, $6,444,000. 

Maryland: Montgomery County, Food and Drug Administration 

Consolidation, $178,526,000. 

New Mexico: Columbus, Border Station, $2,629,000. 

Texas: El Paso, Ysleta Border Station, $20,217,000. 

McAllen, Anzalduas Border Station, $7,478,000. 

Nonprospectus Construction, $10,000,000. 

The Committee directs that each of the foregoing limits of costs 

on new construction projects may be exceeded to the extent that 

savings are affected in other such projects, but not to exceed 10 

percent of the amounts included in an approved prospectus, if required, unless advance approval is obtained from the Committees 

on Appropriations of a greater amount; 

(2) $866,194,000 for repairs and alterations, which includes associated design and construction services: 

Repairs and Alterations: 

District of Columbia: Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 

Phase II, $56,000,000. 

Harry S Truman Building, $4,629,000. 

Main Interior Federal Building, $47,179,000. 

Mary E. Switzer Federal Building, $50,881,000. 

Illinois: Chicago, Dirksen United States Courthouse, $96,571,000. 

Maryland: Laurel, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and 

Drug Administration, $6,028,000. 

Silver Spring, Building 130 Center for Radiological Devices and 

Health, $5,793,000. 

Missouri: Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building, 

$96,608,000. 

New Mexico: Albuquerque, Federal Building, $5,783,000. 

New York: New York, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 

$46,385,000. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
191 

Wisconsin: Milwaukee, United States Federal Building Court- house, $5,599,000. 

Special Emphasis Programs: 

Chlorofluorocarbons Program, $10,000,000. 

Energy Program, $15,000,000. 

Fire and Life Safety Program, $10,000,000. 

Glass Fragment Retention Program, $10,000,000. 

Design Program, $24,825,000. 

Basic Repairs and Alterations, $374,913,000. 

The Committee directs that funds made available in this or any 

previous Act in the Federal Buildings Fund for Repairs and Alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the amount identified for each project, except each project in this or any previous 

Act may be increased by an amount not to exceed 10 percent unless 

advance approval is obtained from the Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount. Additionally, the Committee directs that 

additional projects for which prospectuses have been fully approved 

may be funded under this category only if advance approval is obtained from the Committees on Appropriations, and that the 

amounts provided in this or any prior Act for ‘‘Repairs and Alterations’’ may be used to fund costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings necessary to meet the minimum 

standards for security in accordance with current law and in compliance with the reprogramming guidelines of the appropriate Committees of the House and Senate. 

(3) $163,999,000 for installment acquisition payments including 

payments on purchase contracts; (4) $4,322,548,000 for rental of space; and 

(5) $2,003,830,000 for building operations. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($792,056,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (690,095,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (383,956,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (¥408,100,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (¥306,139,000) 

The construction and acquisition activity funds site, design, construction, and management and inspection costs for construction of 

new Federal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $383,956,000 for construction and acquisition, a decrease of $408,100,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $306,139,000 below the request. 

The Committee does not include $306,139,000 as requested for new 

construction of the Coast Guard Consolidation and Development of 

St. Elizabeth’s Campus in Washington, DC. 

Fiscal year 2007 is the second year of a two-year moratorium imposed by the Federal Judiciary for new major courthouse construction projects. 

The Committee is concerned about the allocation of leased General Services Administration (GSA) office space in the Greater 

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. Evidence indicates that there 

is a disparity between the leased space awarded in Prince George’s 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
192 

County and that in nearby jurisdictions in the Greater Washington, 

D.C. Metropolitan area. Specifically, the Committee is concerned 

with the lack of space awarded around Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority (WMATA) stations in Prince George’s 

County, Maryland. 

U.S. Customs Cargo Inspection Facility Initiative (Detroit, MI).— The Committee notes that a total of $34,857,000 has been approved 

in prior year appropriations bills for the U.S. Customs Cargo Inspection Facility at Ambassador Bridge, Detroit, Michigan. In 

House Report 108–243, the Committee directed the GSA to, among 

other things, work with the Federal inspection agencies and the 

Ambassador Bridge to resolve any outstanding issues regarding facility enhancements and to move immediately to ensure that the 

much-needed improvements are made quickly, including all steps 

necessary to implement critical interim improvements and to expedite the implementation of integrated border inspection areas, such 

as reverse inspection sites, at the Ambassador Bridge once agreements have been reached between the United States and Canada 

and operational details established by the respective border agencies. 

The Committee notes that GSA is constructing Border Station 

improvements at the U.S. Customs Cargo Inspection Facility, Ambassador Bridge, as authorized funded in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation Act. The Committee further notes that a concept for a 

comprehensive international inspection center complex has been 

developed by the Ambassador Bridge companies to provide as many 

as 100 new inspection booths and other facilities to enhance the 

flow of commerce and the law enforcement operations at the bridge. 

GSA has engaged in discussions with the Ambassador Bridge companies and the federal inspection services regarding the future viability of this concept. The Committee directs GSA to continue to 

meet with the Ambassador Bridge companies, the federal inspection agencies, and other stakeholders to facilitate the continued development of the U.S. Customs Cargo Inspection Facility and the 

surrounding neighborhood, including due consideration of the proposed international inspection center. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($861,376,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (866,194,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (866,194,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (+4,818,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (– – –) 

The repairs and alterations activity funds design, construction 

and management and inspection for the repair, alteration, and 

modernization of existing real estate assets. It funds projects to improve health and safety, recapture vacant non-revenue producing 

Government-owned and leased space, and various special programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $866,194,000 for repairs and alterations, an increase of $4,818,000 from the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and the same as the request. The Committee diVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
193 

rects GSA to embark on the projects included in the budget request 

in priority order, starting with those projects that address safety 

and health needs and moving next to the projects with completed 

designs. 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($168,180,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (163,999,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (163,999,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (¥4,181,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (– – –) 

The installment acquisition payments activity funds interest payment for facilities constructed under the Public Building Amendment of 1972 and lease-purchase agreements since 1987, a total of 

80 projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $163,999,000 for installation acquisition payments, a decrease of $4,181,000 below the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

Based on this funding level, 68 of the original 80 projects will be 

paid off, leaving 12 projects remaining. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($4,046,031,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (4,322,548,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (4,322,548,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (+276,517,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (– – –) 

The rental of space program funds lease payments, temporary 

space for Federal employees during major repair and alteration 

projects, and relocations from Federal buildings due to forced 

moves and relocations as a result of health and safety conditions. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $4,322,548,000 for 

rental of space, an increase of $276,517,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitations on Availability of Revenue: 

Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2006 .................................. ($1,885,102,000) 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal year 2007 ..... (2,003,830,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................ (2,003,830,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2006 .................................... (+118,728,000) 

Availability limitation, fiscal year 2007 estimate ..................... (– – –) 

The building operations activity funds cleaning, maintenance, 

utilities, fuel, grounds, maintenance, space acquisitions and assignment services in government-owned facilities and in leased space 

when not provided by the lessor. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
194 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $2,003,830,000 for 

building operations, an increase of $118,728,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

GENERAL ACTIVITIES

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $52,268,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 52,550,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 52,550,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +282,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriations account provides for government-wide policy 

and evaluation activities associated with the management of real 

and personal property assets and certain administrative services; 

government-wide policy support responsibilities relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information technology management, and 

related technology activities; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $52,550,000, an increase of $282,000 from fiscal year 2006 level and the same as the 

request. This funding level assumes that the office of governmentwide policy will continue to focus its activities on core policy and 

regulatory activities that support statutory mission requirements, 

and eliminate activities that are not clearly policy-related. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $98,891,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 83,032,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 83,032,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥15,859,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This account provides appropriations for activities that are not 

feasible for a user fee arrangement. Included under this heading 

are the Office of Citizen Services and Communications (OCSC), 

personal property utilization and donation activities, select management and administration activities and support of governmentwide emergency management activities, and the Civilian Board of 

Contract Appeals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $83,032,000 for 

operating expenses, a decrease of $15,859,000 below the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. Fiscal year 

2006 appropriations included a one-time cost of GSA relocation at 

a level of $16,153,000. 

The Committee recognizes that Public Service Recognition Week, 

a program of the Public Employees Roundtable, has educated 

America about the value of the career workforce, which carries out 

the daily operations of government. This program has existed for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
195 

over 10 years and plays an important role in the education of our 

nation’s youth by providing them with timely information about 

their government. The Committee urges the GSA to support the 

mission of the Public Employees Roundtable and provide $150,000 

in administrative and logistical assistance to Public Service Recognition Week activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $42,976,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 44,312,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 44,312,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,336,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct GSA management and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function 

provides internal audit and contract audit services. Contract audits 

provide professional advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test 

internal control systems, and develop information to improve operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving GSA programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $44,312,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,336,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT (E-GOV) FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,970,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 5,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +30,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥2,000,000 

The appropriation provides support for interagency electronic 

government (‘‘e-Gov’’) initiatives that utilize the Internet or other 

electronic methods as a means to increase Federal government accessibility, efficiency, and productivity. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 

the ‘‘e-Gov’’ fund, an increase of $30,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and $2,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee again does not include a general provision proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request allowing the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to use $40,000,000 of surplus 

funds in the General Supply Fund to finance OMB’s list of ‘‘e-Gov’’ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
196 

initiatives across government. The Committee refuses to relinquish 

oversight of the development and procurement of information technology projects of the various agencies under its jurisdiction. The 

Committee directs GSA to evaluate the pricing structure of its 

services to Federal agencies to determine if GSA is overcharging its 

Federal clients and report back to the Committee on Appropriations its findings no later than 120 days after enactment of this 

act. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,922,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 3,030,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,030,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥108,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions, office 

staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents Gerald R. Ford, 

Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Bill Clinton and for pension and 

postal franking privileges for the widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, this appropriation is authorized to provide 

funding for security and travel related expenses for each former 

President and the spouse of a former President pursuant to section 

531 of Public Law 103–329. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,030,000 for 

allowances and office staff of former Presidents, a decrease of 

$108,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. The following table describes the distribution 

of the funds: 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Ford Carter Bush Clinton Widows Total 

Personal Compensation ................................................................ 96 96 96 96 0 384 

Personnel Benefits ........................................................................ 24 2 63 64 0 153 

Benefits for Former Presidents .................................................... 188 188 188 197 20 781 

Travel ............................................................................................ 46 2 55 64 0 167 

Rental Payments to GSA .............................................................. 105 102 175 498 0 880 

Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges: 

Telephone ............................................................................. 16 10 16 77 0 119 

Postage ................................................................................ 9 15 13 15 8 60 

Printing ................................................................................ 5 5 14 9 0 33 

Other Services ..................................................................... 37 82 65 113 0 297 

Supplies and Materials ....................................................... 18 5 15 16 0 54 

Equipment ........................................................................... 6 7 48 11 0 72 

Infrastructure Contingency Planning .................................. 0 0 0 0 0 30 

Total Obligations ........................................................ 550 514 748 1,160 28 3,030 

FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Appropriations, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................... $14,850,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 16,866,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,866,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,016,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
197 

The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established within 

the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive Order on 

October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected as a byproduct 

of the Government’s program activities. 

The Federal Information Center (FIC) program was established 

within the GSA in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95–491 

in 1980. The program’s purpose is to provide the public with direct 

information about all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and 

services. To accomplish this mission, contractual services are used 

to respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free telephone 

call center. 

In 2000, the CIC assumed responsibility for the operations of the 

FIC program with the resulting organization being officially named 

the Federal Consumer Information Center. The Federal Consumer 

Information Center combines the nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the database of the FIC with the CIC website 

and publications distribution programs. 

During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Consumer Information Center became part of GSA’s newly established Office of Citizen Services and Communications and was renamed the Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC). The new Office serves as a central federal 

gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media 

to obtain information and services from the government. FCIC assumed operational control of the FirstGov.gov website in fiscal year 

2002. 

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving 

fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities are financed 

from the following: annual appropriations from the general funds 

of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for distribution of 

publications, user fees collected from the public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All are available as authorized in 

appropriation acts without regard to fiscal year limitations. The bill 

includes a limitation of $18,000,000 on the availability of the revolving fund. Any revenues accruing to this fund in excess of this 

amount shall remain in the fund and are not available for expenditure except as authorized in appropriation Acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $16,866,000, an increase of $2,016,000 over the level for fiscal year 2006 and the 

same as the budget request. 

The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 

Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, user 

fees from the public, and other income. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Section 701. The Committee continues the provision that provides that costs included in rent received from government corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, repair and 

improvement shall be credited to the Federal Buildings Fund. 

Section 702. The Committee continues the provision providing 

authority for the use of funds for the hire of motor vehicles. 

Section 703. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds made available for activities of the Federal Buildings 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
198 

Fund may be transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress. 

Section 704. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for developing courthouse construction requests 

that do not meet GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial 

Conference. 

Section 705. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that no funds may be used to increase the amount of occupiable 

square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or 

any other service usually provided, to any agency which does not 

pay the requested rent. 

Section 706. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) made against the government. 

Section 707. The Committee includes a new provision requested 

by the President that proposes merging the General Supply Fund 

and the Information Technology Fund into a new Acquisition Services Fund. The Committee does not include transfer language as requested by the President. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $37,823,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 39,110,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 39,110,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +1,287,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, 

quasi-judicial agency established to protect the civil service merit 

system. The MSPB adjudicates appeals primarily involving personnel actions, certain Federal employee complaints, and retirement benefits issues. The MSPB reports to the President whether 

merit systems are sufficiently free of prohibited employment practices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,110,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, an increase of $1,287,000 

above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and the same 

as the budget request. This amount includes up to $2,579,000 

which is transferred from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The recommendation provides funding for mandatory 

pay raises and training, increased rent payments, and the one-time 

cost of relocating the San Francisco office into a building that is 

fully compliant with current safety standards for seismic activity. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
199 

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRUST FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,980,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +20,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +2,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the activities of the 

Morris K. Udall Foundation, an increase of $20,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and $2,000,000 above the request. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,881,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 693,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +119,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +1,307,000 

Public Law 105–156 established the United States Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution as part of the Morris K. Udall 

Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy 

Foundation. It also established in the Treasury an Environmental 

Dispute Resolution Fund to be available to establish and operate 

the Institute. The purpose of the Institute is to conduct environmental conflict resolution and training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,000,000 for 

the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, an increase of 

$119,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $280,215,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 289,605,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 289,605,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +9,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) with funds for its basic operations dealing 

with management of the Government’s archives and records, operation of Presidential libraries, and for the review for declassification of classified security information. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $289,605,000 for 

the operating expenses of NARA, an increase of $9,390,000 above 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
200 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $37,535,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 45,455,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 45,455,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +7,920,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The electronic records archive appropriations supports all direct 

NARA actions and activities associated with this major project for 

preserving digitally created records for archival purposes, storing 

and managing them electronically, and ensuring appropriate longterm access. The appropriation supports a program office, research 

partnerships, and information technology analysis and design. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $45,455,000 for 

the electronic records archive of the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), an increase of $7,920,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

As stated in the Committee’s report for fiscal year 2006, NARA 

is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on the cost, schedule, and performance of the Electronic Records Administration (ERA) project. These 

quarterly reports should provide information on the status of the 

project’s schedule, budget, and expenditures as measured against a 

reported baseline; a prioritization of project risks and their mitigation efforts; and corrective actions taken to manage identified 

schedule slippages, cost overruns, or quality problems should they 

occur. 

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $9,585,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 13,020,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,020,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +3,435,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides for the repair, alteration, and improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries nationwide. It enables the National Archives to maintain its facilities in 

proper condition for visitors, researchers, and employees, and also 

maintain the structural integrity of the buildings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,020,000 for 

repairs and restoration, an increase of $3,435,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
201 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $7,425,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +75,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +7,500,000 

This program provides for grants funding that the Commission 

makes, nationwide, to preserve and publish records that document 

American history. Administered within the National Archives and 

Records Administration, which preserves federal records, the 

NHPRC helps state, local, and private institutions preserve nonfederal records, helps publish the papers of major figures in American history, and helps archivists and records managers improve 

their techniques, training, and ability to serve a range of information users. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,500,000 for 

the National Historical Publications and Research Commission 

grants program, an increase of $75,000 above the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and $7,500,000 above the budget request of which, 

$2,000,000 shall be transferred to the operating expenses account 

for the staffing and operating expenses of the National Historical 

Publications and Records Administration. 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on administrative 

expenses 

Fiscal year 2007 recommendation .......................................................... (1,500,000,000) ($331,000) 

Fiscal year 2006 appropriation ............................................................... (1,500,000,000) (323,000) 

Fiscal year 2007 budget request ............................................................ (1,500,000,000) (331,000) 

Comparison with fiscal year 2006 appropriation .......................... (0) (+8,000) 

Comparison with fiscal year 2007 request .................................... (0) (0) 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 on 

CLF lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed funds. 

This limitation represents the same level as fiscal year 2006 and 

the same as the budget request. The Committee expects to be kept 

apprised of CLF lending activity. 

The Committee recommends the budget request of not more than 

$331,000 for administrative expenses, an increase of $8,000 above 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Fiscal year 2007 recommendation ..................................................... $941,000 

Fiscal year 2006 appropriation .......................................................... 941,000 

Fiscal year 2007 budget request ....................................................... 941,000 

Comparison with fiscal year 2006 appropriation ............................. – – – 

Comparison with fiscal year 2007 request ....................................... – – – 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
202 

The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 

(CDRLF) was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 

‘‘low-income’’ credit unions in providing basic financial services to 

low-income communities. Low-interest loans and deposits are made 

available to assist these credit unions. Loans or deposits are normally repaid in five years, although shorter repayment periods may 

be considered. Technical assistance grants are also available to 

low-income credit unions. Earnings generated from the CDRLF are 

available to fund technical assistance grants in addition to funds 

provided for specifically in appropriations acts. Grants are available for improving operations as well as addressing safety and 

soundness issues. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007 the Committee recommends $941,000 for the 

National Credit Union Administration’s Community Development 

Revolving Loan Fund for technical assistance grants. While the Administration and NCUA have not requested additional funds for 

loans in fiscal year 2007, the Committee expects the CDRLF to continue making loans from their available funds derived from repaid 

loans and interest earned on previous loans to designated credit 

unions. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $75,933,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 79,594,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 81,594,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +5,661,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +2,000,000 

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent federal 

agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States as well as significant accidents in the 

other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and 

pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing 

future accidents. Although it has always operated independently, 

NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until 

the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations effective April of 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
203 

when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. In addition, the NTSB 

operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $81,594,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $5,661,000 above fiscal year 2006 and 

$2,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee is concerned 

by the decline in the rate of on-site investigations of fatal and serious aviation accidents. In fact, the percentage of fatal aviation accidents to which a regional investigator traveled dropped from 76 

percent in fiscal year 2003 to 62 percent in fiscal year 2005. Despite this reduction in coverage, the NTSB has requested only 399 

full time equivalent staff years (FTE) for fiscal year 2007, a 19 FTE 

reduction from fiscal year 2005. The Committee, therefore, provides 

$2,000,000 above the budget request for an additional 11 FTE to 

hire accident investigators. Furthermore, the Committee directs 

that none of these additional funds shall be used for the Academy. 

(RESCISSION)

The bill includes a rescission of $1,664,000 from the remaining 

funds made available in Public Law 106–246 for the investigations 

of Egypt Air 990 and Alaska Air 261, as proposed in the budget request. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $116,820,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 119,790,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 119,790,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +2,970,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ 

NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish working 

efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnershipbased organizations are independent, tax-exempt, community-based 

nonprofit entities, often referred to as NeighborWorks organizations. 

Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to Neighborhood Housing Services of America (NHSA), the NeighborWorks network’s national secondary market. The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local NeighborWorks organizations’ revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities that are placed with private sector social investors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $119,790,000 for 

fiscal year 2007, the same amount as the budget request and an 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
204 

increase of $2,970,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $11,037,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 11,489,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 11,489,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +452,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, partners with other executive 

branch Departments and agencies to foster high ethical standards. 

The OGE issues and monitors rules, regulations, and memoranda 

pertaining to the prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest, 

post-employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and financial 

disclosure for executive branch employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,489,000 for 

the Office of Government Ethics, an increase of $452,000 above the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $121,295,790 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 111,095,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 111,095,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥10,200,790 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the Federal Government agency responsible for management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of the merit civil service system. Although individual agencies are increasingly responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a Government-wide policy framework for personnel matters, advises and assists agencies (often on 

a reimbursable basis), and ensures that agency operations are consistent with requirements of law, with emphasis on such issues as 

veterans preference. OPM oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues regulations and policies on hiring, classification 

and pay, training, investigations, and many other aspects of personnel management, and operates a reimbursable training program 

for the Federal Government’s managers and executives. OPM is 

also responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits 

and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees, retired Federal employees, and their survivors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $111,095,000 for 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), a decrease of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
205 

$10,200,790 below the enacted fiscal year 2006 level and the same 

as the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $6,913,000 for the enterprise human resources integration project and $1,436,000 for the 

e-human resources line of business project as proposed in the budget request. The Committee does not fund the proposed $26,730,000 

increase for retirement systems modernization and in doing so only 

provides $100,178,000 from appropriate trust funds to OPM. 

The Committee does not fund the proposed $2,129,000 increase 

in general funds for pay and performance modernization. As such, 

the request for Strategic Human Resources Policy is reduced by 

$1,000,000 and the request for Human Capital Leadership and 

Merit Systems Accountability is reduced by $1,129,000. Instead the 

requested funding level for the Management Services Division is 

increased by that same $2,129,000. 

The Committee directs OPM to continue the process of implementing and refining the new human resources management systems at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security before expanding to other agencies and departments. 

The Committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has provided useful recommendations to OPM’s retirement 

system modernization effort. The Committee directs GAO to continue to monitor the implementation of the modernization program 

and provide an update to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2007 as to OPM’s progress in converting 

the agency’s paper personnel file system into a secure digital system. 

Operating Plans.—The Committee directs the office to submit an 

operating plan for fiscal year 2007, signed by the director for review by the Committees on Appropriations of both the House and 

Senate within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. The operating plan 

must include funding levels including an identification of carryover 

funds for the various offices, centers, programs, and initiatives covered in the budget justification and supporting documents referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports, and the 

statement of the managers. 

Budget Justifications.—While the budget justification materials 

are improved over the fiscal year 2006 submission, there is still a 

good deal of improvement to be done. For example, dollars requested are not currently broken out between trust fund and general funds for specific programs or activities within organizations. 

Additionally, when providing a total that includes reimbursements, 

OPM should also provide the breakout of direct appropriation and 

reimbursement. The Committee directs OPM to include these 

changes in future budget justifications. Finally, the Committee directs OPM to continue its efforts to include in the budget justification for the Committees on Appropriations clear, detailed, and concise information on how the programs will be funded and how they 

will be measured. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
206 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $2,050,290 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 1,598,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,598,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥452,290 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit, investigative, 

evaluation, and inspection functions to identify management and 

administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for fraud, 

waste and mismanagement. The audits function provides internal 

agency audit, insurance audit, and contract audit services. Contract 

audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 

accounting and financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, 

administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations, including 

financial statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide 

detailed technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 

health care providers, and insurance subscribers. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,598,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management, $452,290 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the 

same as the fiscal year 2007 budget request. In addition, the recommendation also provides $16,165,710 from appropriate trust 

funds to the Office of Inspector General. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 ......................................................... $8,204,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ....................................................... 8,765,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,765,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2005 .................................................. +561,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2006 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation covers: (1) the Government’s share of the cost 

of health insurance for annuitants as defined in sections 8901 and 

8906 of title 5, United States Code; (2) the Government’s share of 

the cost of health insurance for annuitants who were retired when 

the federal employees health benefits law became effective, as defined in the Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 

1960; and (3) the Government’s contribution for payment of administrative expenses incurred by the Office of Personnel Management 

in administration of the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$8,765,000,000 for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits, an increase of $561,000,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and the same as the Administration’s 

request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
207 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $39,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 39,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 39,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation finances the Government’s share of premiums, which is one-third the cost, for basic life insurance for annuitants retiring after December 31, 1989, and who are less than 

65 years old. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$39,000,000 for the Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Life Insurance, the same as both the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level, and the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2007. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $10,434,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 10,532,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 10,532,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +98,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation provides for payment of annuities, including 

the payment of annuities under special acts for persons employed 

on the construction of the Panama Canal or their widows and widows of employees of the Lighthouse Service; payment of the Federal 

government share of retirement costs of the unfunded liability resulting from any statute authorizing new or liberalized benefits, extension of retirement coverage, or pay increases; transfers for interest on unfunded liability and payment of military service annuities 

covering interest on the unfunded liability and annuity disbursements for military service; payments for spouse equity providing 

survivor annuities to eligible former spouses of annuitants who 

died between September 1978 and May 1986 and did not elect survivor coverage; and transfers for payment of FERS supplemental liability covering annual amortization payments financing supplemental liabilities for FERS. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$10,532,000,000 for the Payment to Civil Service Retirement and 

Disability Fund, an increase of $98,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level, and the same as the Administration’s request. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
208 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $15,171,750 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 15,937,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,937,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. 765,250 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Office of Special Counsel: (1) investigates federal employee 

allegations of prohibited personnel practices (including reprisal for 

whistleblowing) and, when appropriate, prosecutes before the Merit 

Systems Protection Board; (2) provides a channel for whistleblowing by federal employees; and (3) enforces the Hatch Act. The 

Office may transmit whistleblower allegations to the agency head 

concerned and require an agency investigation and a report to the 

Congress and the President when appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,937,000 for 

the Office of Special Counsel, an increase of $765,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and the same as the fiscal year 2007 

budget request. 

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $24,750,000 

Budget Request, fiscal year 2007 ...................................................... 24,255,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 24,255,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥495,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The Selective Service System was established by the Selective 

Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces adequate to ensure 

the security of the United States during a time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have relied on volunteers to 

fill military manpower requirements, but selective service registration was reinstituted in July, 1980. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $24,255,000 for 

the Selective Service System, $495,000 below the fiscal year 2006 

funding level and the same as the budget request, to be spent as 

outlined in the budget justification document. 

U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $1,782,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. +218,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
209 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for operating expenses of 

the Interagency Council on Homelessness, the same as the requested level and $218,000 above the enacted amount for fiscal 

year 2006. The Committee encourages the Council to continue to 

work closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to not only develop but also implement government-wide response to the national problem of homelessness. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

The Postal Service is funded almost entirely by Postal rate payers rather than tax payers. Funds provided to the Postal Service 

in the Payment to the Postal Service Fund include the costs of revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters; reconciliation adjustments for amounts appropriated 

for free and reduced rate mail and the actual amounts required; 

and partial reimbursement for losses which the Postal Service incurred as a result of insufficient appropriations in fiscal years 1991 

through 1993 and the additional revenues it would have received 

between 1993 and 1998 in the absence of certain rate phasing provisions of the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993. Congress does not provide funds for either general operations or capital investments. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $115,917,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 79,915,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 108,915,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥7,002,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ +29,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $108,915,000 in 

fiscal year 2006 for Payment to the Postal Service Fund, an increase of $29,000,000 above the President’s request. This amount 

includes $29,000,000 for revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate 

mail pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2401(d) and $79,915,000 is provided as 

an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee has concerns with the new process implemented 

this year by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In past 

years, the OMB would use the Postal Service’s audit figures to base 

the advance appropriation request for free mailings for the blind 

and overseas voters. However, this year it appears that OMB simply took the average appropriation over a series of years to derive 

the President’s request, apparently for the sole reason that the 

Postal Service’s audit figures were higher than in previous years. 

This new system could produce funding amounts that may be either significantly lower or higher than actual sums that the Postal 

Service needs. Providing less than the Postal Service needs will 

only compound their financial burdens, something that the Committee has strongly urged the Postal Service to try and repair. In 

addition, the Committee would certainly not want to provide more 

funding than the Postal Service actually needs for these activities. 

The Committee is concerned that OMB’s new use of averages in determining the amount for free mail is inaccurate and the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
210 

mittee urges OMB to continue to use Postal Service audit figures 

in the future. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 ......................................................... $47,518,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... 47,110,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 47,110,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2006 .................................................. ¥408,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ – – – 

The U.S. Tax Court adjudicates controversies involving deficiencies in income, estate, and gift taxes. The Court also has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in certain excise taxes to issue declaratory judgments in the areas of qualifications of retirement 

plans, exemption of charitable organizations, and to decide certain 

cases involving disclosure of tax information by the Commissioner 

of the Internal Revenue Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $47,110,000 for the U.S. Tax Court, 

the same as the budget request and $408,000 below the amounts 

provided in fiscal year 2006. 

TITLE VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 801. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 802. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 803. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 804. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 805. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be transferred without express authority. 

Section 806. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to engage in activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act. 

Section 807. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

employment rights of Federal employees who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces. 

Section 808. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 809. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds by any person or entity convicted of violating the 

Buy American Act. 

Section 810. The Committee continues the provision specifying 

reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new 

offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
211 

Section 811. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 812. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds used by the Executive Office of the President not be 

used to request any official background investigation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Section 813. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

that cost accounting standards not apply to a contract under the 

Federal Health Benefits Program. 

Section 814. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

non-foreign area cost of living allowances. 

Section 815. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP. 

Section 816. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP unless the 

life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of an 

act of rape or incest. 

Section 817. The Committee continues the provision waiving restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles, materials, and 

supplies in the case of acquisition by the Federal Government of information technology. 

Section 818. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to the determination 

that real estate brokerage is a financial activity. 

Section 819. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for eminent domain unless such a taking is employed for a public use but does not repeat the requirement for a 

study by the Government Accountability Office. 

TITLE IX—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 901. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

agencies to pay costs of travel to the United States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned to foreign duty in the 

event of a death or a life threatening illness of the employee. 

Section 902. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its 

workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 903. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the Federal Government. 

Section 904. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used for 

quarter allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 905. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing 

non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be in the continental 

U.S. 

Section 906. The Committee continues the provision ensuring 

that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services. 

Section 907. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
212 

grams with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through 

such programs. 

Section 908. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds may be used to pay rent and other service costs in the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 909. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

payments to persons filling positions for which they have been 

nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination. 

Section 910. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

interagency financing of groups absent prior statutory approval. 

Section 911. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Postal Service to employ guards and give them the same special police powers as certain other federal guards. 

Section 912. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S. 

Section 913. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees. 

Section 914. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of offices under 

certain circumstances. 

Section 915. The Committee continues the provision to allow for 

interagency funding of national security and emergency telecommunications initiatives. 

Section 916. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was not created 

solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 917. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Section 918. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the payment of any employee who prohibits, threatens or prevents 

another employee from communicating with Congress. 

Section 919. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

Federal training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 920. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for implementation of agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are included. 

Section 921. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive agency personnel 

in support or defeat of legislative initiatives. 

Section 922. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

any federal agency from disclosing an employee’s home address to 

any labor organization, absent employee authorization or court 

order. 

Section 923. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to provide non-public information such as mailing 

or telephone lists to any person or organization outside the government without the approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 924. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for propaganda and publicity purposes not authorized by Congress. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
213 

Section 925. The Committee continues the provision directing 

agency employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform 

official duties. 

Section 926. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the use of funds to finance an appropriate share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. 

Section 927. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds (not to 

exceed $10,000,000) to the Government-wide Policy account of GSA 

to finance an appropriate share of various government-wide boards 

and councils. 

Section 928. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

breast feeding in a federal building or on federal property if the 

woman and child are authorized to be there. 

Section 929. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

interagency funding of the National Science and Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The report should include 

the entire budget of the National Science and Technology Council. 

Section 930. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

documents involving the distribution of federal funds to indicate 

the agency providing the funds and the amount provided. 

Section 931. The Committee repeals the provision extending authorization for agency franchise funds. 

Section 932. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to monitor personal information relating to the use 

of federal internet sites to collect, review, or create any aggregate 

list that includes personally identifiable information relating to access to or use of any federal internet site of such agency. 

Section 933. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide contraceptive 

coverage and provides exemptions to certain religious plans. 

Section 934. The Committee continues the provision providing 

recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the official antidoping agency. 

Section 935. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

for official travel to be used by departments and agencies, if consistent with OMB and Budget Circular A–126, to participate in the 

fractional aircraft ownership pilot program. 

Section 936. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to 

the Legislative Branch, and implementing limitations on the Coast 

Guard Congressional Fellowship Program. 

Section 937. The Committee continues the provision that restricts the use of funds for federal law enforcement training facilities. 

Section 938. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

the use of funds for the ‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative that were not appropriated specifically for that purpose. 

Section 939. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

public-private competitions in reference to OMB Circular A–76. 

Section 940. The Committee continues a provision, with modifications, providing that the adjustment in rates of basic pay for employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in fiscal year 

2007 shall be an increase of 2.7 percent. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
214 

Section 941. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits executive branch agencies from creating prepackaged news 

stories that are broadcast or distributed in the United States unless the story includes a clear notification within the text or audio 

of that news story that the prepackaged news story was prepared 

or funded by that executive branch agency. This provision confirms 

the opinion of the Government Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005 (B–304272). 

Section 942. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds used in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United States 

Code or section 552.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Section 943. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before 

issuing the individual a government travel charge card and limits 

agency actions accordingly. 

Section 944. The Committee continues the provision limiting 

these general provisions to title V. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states: 

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . . 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
215 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last Year of Author- ization Authorization Level 

Appropriations in 

Last Year of Author- ization 

Amount of Program or New Fees 

Title I—Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and Operations .................. 1998 n/a n/a 150,083 

Railroad Safety ............................. 1998 90,739 57,050 n/a 

Grants to the National Passenger 

Railroad Corporation ................ 2002 955,000 826,476 900,000 

Maritime Administration: 

Operations and Training ............... 2006 122,249 128,527 116,442 

Maritime Security Program ........... 2006 156,000 154,440 154,400 

Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program (Title XI) .......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Administrative Expenses ...... 2006 1,426 4,085 3,317 

Ship Disposal Program ................. 2006 21,000 20,790 25,740 

National Defense Tank Vessel 

Construction Program ............... 2006 n/a n/a n/a 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Administrative Expenses ...... n/a n/a n/a 17,721 

Pipeline Safety .............................. 2006 82,500 72,280 75,735 

Surface Transportation Board ................ 1998 12,000 13,850 25,618 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration: 

Research and Development .......... n/a n/a n/a 6,367 

Title II—Department of the Treasury 

Departmental Offices 1,

2,3 ...................... n/a n/a n/a 223,786 

Department-wide Systems and Capital 

Investments ....................................... n/a n/a n/a 34,032 

Office of the Inspector General ............. n/a n/a n/a 17,352 

Inspector General for Tax Administration .................................................... n/a n/a n/a 136,469 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 2005 35,500 10,416 84,066 

Financial Management Service .............. n/a n/a n/a 233,654 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ................................................... n/a n/a n/a 92,604 

Bureau of Public Debt ........................... n/a n/a n/a 180,789 

Community Development and Financial 

Institutions Fund 

1998 60,000 80,000 40,000 

Internal Revenue Service: 

Taxpayer Services .......................... n/a n/a n/a 2,059,151 

Enforcement 4 ................................ n/a n/a n/a 4,757,126 

Operations Support ....................... n/a n/a n/a 3,438,404 

Business Systems Modernization .. n/a n/a n/a 212,310 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration .............................. 2004 20,000 40,000 14,846 

TITLE III—Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 contract renewals and 

administrative expenses ........... 1994 8,446,173 5,458,106 20,851,790 

Section 441 contracts ................... 1994 109,410 150,000 48,150 

Section 8 preservation, protection, 

and family unification .............. 1994 759,259 541,000 149,300 

Contract Administrators ................ n/a n/a n/a 145,300 

Public Housing Capital Fund ........ 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,178,000 

Public Housing Operating Fund .... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 3,564,000 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant .. 2005 n/a 8,928,000 8,815 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund ........................................ 2005 n/a 992,000 1,010 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS ................................................... 1994 156,300 156,000 300,100 

Rural Housing and Economics Development .................................................. n/a n/a n/a ..............................


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
216 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last Year of Authorization Authorization Level 

Appropriations in 

Last Year of Authorization 

Amount of Program 

or New Fees 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block 

Grants ....................................... 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 3,872,580 

Economic Development Initiatives n/a n/a n/a 250,000 

Neighborhood Initiatives ............... n/a n/a n/a 20,000 

HOME Investment Partnerships ............. 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,891,890 

Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership 

Opportunity: 

Capacity Building ......................... 1994 25,000 20,000 32,000 

Housing Assistance Council ......... n/a n/a n/a 3,500 

Self-Help Housing Opportunity 

Program .................................... 2000 n/a 20,000 21,920 

National Housing Development 

Corporation ............................... n/a n/a n/a 1,980 

Homeless Assistance Grants ................. 1994 465,774 599,000 1,535,990 

Housing for the Elderly .......................... 2003 n/a 783,286 734,580 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities ... 2003 n/a 250,515 236,610 

FHA General and Special Risk Program 

Account: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ... 1995 n/a (20,885,072) (35,000,000) 

Limitation on direct loans ............ 1995 n/a (220,000) (50,000,000) 

Credit Subsidy ............................... 1995 n/a 188,395 8,600 

Administrative Expenses ............... 1995 n/a 197,470 301,864 

GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan 

Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ... 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (100,000,000) 

Administrative Expenses ............... 1996 n/a 9,101 10,700 

Policy Development and Research ......... 1994 36,470 35,000 55,787 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing 

Initiatives Program ............................ 1994 26,000 20,481 18,800 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program ......... 1994 276,000 185,000 114,840 

Salaries and Expenses ........................... 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,141,118 

Title V—District of Columbia 

Emergency Planning and Security Costs n/a n/a n/a 8,533 

District of Columbia Water and Sewer 

Authority ............................................ n/a n/a n/a 7,000 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer ..... n/a n/a n/a 5,000 

School Improvement ............................... n/a n/a n/a 40,800 

Title VI—Executive Office of the 

President 

Compensation of the President 1999 n/a n/a 450 

White House Office, Salaries and Expenses ............................................... 1978 n/a n/a 51,952 

Executive Residence, Operating Expenses ............................................... 1978 n/a n/a 12,041 

Executive Residence, White House Repair and Restoration ......................... 1978 n/a n/a 1,600 

Council of Economic Advisors ............... 1978 n/a n/a 4,002 

Office of Policy Development ................. 1978 n/a n/a 3,385 

National Security Council ...................... 1978 n/a n/a 8,405 

Office of Administration ........................ 1978 n/a n/a 91,393 

Office of Management and Budget ....... 2003 n/a n/a 76,185 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(ONDCP): 

ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses .... 2004 n/a n/a 26,928 

ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses, 

Model State Drug Laws ............ 2004 n/a n/a 1 

ONDCP, Counterdrug Technology 

Assessment Center, 

Counterdrug R&D ..................... 2004 n/a n/a 9,600 

ONDCP, Counterdrug Technology 

Assessment Center, Technology 

Transfer .................................... 2004 n/a n/a 10,000 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
217 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Last Year of Authorization Authorization Level 

Appropriations in 

Last Year of Authorization 

Amount of Program 

or New Fees 

ONDCP, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ............................ 2004 n/a n/a 227,000 

ONDCP, Other Federal Drug Control (except Drug-Free Communities) ....................................... 2004 n/a n/a 13 

ONDCP, Other Federal Drug Control, Media Campaign .............. 2004 n/a n/a 100 

Unanticipated Needs .............................. 1978 n/a n/a 1,000 

Special Assistance to the President, Salaries and Expenses .... 1978 n/a n/a 4,352 

Title VII—Independent Agencies 

Election Assistance Commission ........... 2005 10,000 13,888 16,908 

Federal Election Commission ................. 1981 9,400 51,742 57,138 

General Services Administration: 

Federal Building Fund .................. n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Construction and Acquisition ....... n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Repairs and Alterations ................ n/a n/a n/a n/a 

National Transportation Safety Board ... 2006 87,539 75,933 81,594 

1 Appropriations for International Affairs activities were permanently authorized in 31 U.S.C. § 325(b) (1982). 

2 Appropriations for OFAC activities related to Cuba were permanently authorized in 22 U.S.C. § 6009 (1992). 

3Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy were permanently authorized in 31 U.S.C. § 5355 (2005). 

4 The Earned Income Tax Credit compliance program was authorized in P.L. 105–33 (2002). 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The Committee recommends the following transfers: 

UNDER TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’, the 

Secretary of Transportation is allowed to transfer amounts among 

the individual offices of the Office of the Secretary, subject to certain conditions. 

Under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Payments to air carriers,’’ the 

Secretary of Transportation is allowed to transfer overflight fees 

collected to the Federal Aviation Administration to repay funds 

borrowed during the fiscal year to fund the essential air service 

program. 

Under Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’, the Administrator is allowed to transfer up to two percent of certain funds 

subject to conditions. 

Under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’, the Administrator is authorized to transfer funds between 

offices. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

transit funds appropriated before October 1, 2006, that remain 

available for expenditure to be transferred. 

Under Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account, 

‘‘Operations’’, the Committee authorizes funds to be transferred to 

operations and training. 

Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ‘‘OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
218 

fice of the secretary, salaries and expenses’’ to ‘‘Minority business 

outreach’’. 

UNDER TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Under the Department of the Treasury, ‘‘Departmental offices, 

salaries and expenses’’, up to three percent, may be transferred between program activities of the Departmental Offices; and that of 

the $5,114,000 for the Treasury-wide Financial Statement Audit 

and Internal Control program, such amounts as necessary may be 

transferred to the Department’s offices and bureaus. 

Under the Department of the Treasury, ‘‘Department-wide systems and capital investments programs’’, amounts necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Department’s offices, bureaus, and 

other organizations may be transferred. 

Under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ‘‘Enforcement’’, up to 

$10,000,000 may be transferred to ‘‘Operations support’’ for management of the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program. 

Section 201 allows the transfer of five percent of any appropriation (or three percent of IRS, ‘‘Enforcement’’) made available to the 

IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to prior Congressional 

approval. 

Section 208 allows the transfer of 20 percent of the IRS Taxpayer 

Services, Enforcement, and Operations Support appropriations necessary to implement the new IRS account structure, subject to a 30 

day notification period. 

Section 211 authorizes transfers, up to two percent, between Departmental Offices, Office of the Inspector General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 212 authorizes transfers, up to two percent, between the 

IRS and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

under certain circumstances. 

Section 215 authorizes the transfer of funds from the ‘‘Financial 

management service, salaries and expenses’’, to the ‘‘Debt collection 

fund’’ as necessary to cover the cost of debt collection. 

UNDER TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring the following 

amounts to the salaries and expenses account for administrative 

expenses: ‘‘FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account’’ 

($347,490,000); ‘‘FHA general and special risk insurance program 

account’’ ($209,286,000); ‘‘GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed 

securities loan guarantee program account’’ ($10,700,000); ‘‘Indian 

housing loan guarantee fund program account’’ ($247,500); ‘‘Native 

Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund’’ ($35,000); and ‘‘Native 

American housing block grants account’’ ($148,500). 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring no less than the following amounts to the working capital fund under the salaries and 

expenses account for development and management of information 

technology systems: ‘‘Tenant-based rental assistance’’ ($5,900,000); 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
219 

‘‘Project-based rental assistance’’ ($3,960,000); ‘‘Public housing capital fund’’ ($14,850,000); ‘‘Housing opportunities for people with 

AIDS’’ ($1,485,000); ‘‘HOME investment partnership program account’’ ($3,465,000); ‘‘Homeless assistance grants account’’ 

($2,475,000); ‘‘Housing for the elderly account’’ ($1,980,000); ‘‘Housing for persons with disabilities account’’ ($990,000); ‘‘FHA mutual 

mortgage insurance program account’’ ($23,562,000); ‘‘FHA general 

and special risk insurance program account’’ ($10,692,000). 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,760,000 from 

the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration to the Office of Inspector General. 

The Committee has included language under the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development transferring $62,000,000 from 

the ‘‘Federal housing enterprise oversight fund’’ to the ‘‘Office of 

federal housing enterprise oversight account’’. 

UNDER TITLE IV—THE JUDICIARY

Under the Judiciary, ‘‘Courts of appeals, district courts, and 

other judicial services’’, funds may be transferred to the United 

States Marshals Service for courthouse security. 

Section 402. The Committee continues a provision permitting the 

Judiciary to transfer up to five percent of any appropriation with 

certain limitations. 

UNDER TITLE V—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Committee has included language transferring fines collected under DC Official Code section 50–2201.05(b)(1) and (2) in 

the general funds to the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. 

The Committee has included language to allow the District of Columbia to transfer local funds in certain instances. 

UNDER TITLE VI—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Language is included under Office of National Drug Control Policy, ‘‘Counterdrug technology assessment center’’, allowing for the 

transfer of funds to other Federal departments or agencies. 

Language is included under Federal Drug Control Programs, 

‘‘High intensity drug trafficking areas program’’, which allows for 

the transfer of funds to other Federal departments or agencies. 

Language is included under Federal Drug Control Programs, 

‘‘Other Federal drug control program’’, allowing the transfer of 

funds to other Federal departments or agencies. 

Language is included under Special Assistance to the President 

and the Official Residence of the Vice President, ‘‘Operating expenses’’, allowing the transfer of funds to other Federal departments or agencies. 

Section 601. The Committee continues a provision permitting the 

Executive Office of the President to transfer up to 10 percent of 

any appropriation, subject to a 15 day notification period. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
220 

UNDER TITLE VII—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Under Title VII Independent Agencies, a number of transfers are 

allowed: 1) the General Services Administration allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents account may transfer such sums as 

necessary to the Department of the Treasury for certain pension 

benefits; 2) the General Services Administration Electronic Government Fund may transfer $3,000,000 to Federal departments in pursuit of programs goals; 3) under the Election Assistance Commission, $4,950,000 is transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 4) under Merit Systems Protection Board, up 

to $2,579,000 is transferred from the Civil Service Retirement and 

Disability Fund; 5) under Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, a certain percentage of funds may be transferred to the Native Nations Institute 

for necessary expenses; 6) under the National Archives and Records 

Administration, $2,000,000 is transferred from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the operating expenses account; 7) under Office of Personnel Management, amounts 

from certain trust funds are transferred to the salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses; and 8) under Office of 

Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General, amounts from 

certain trust funds are transferred to the salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses. 

Section 703. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds made available for activities of the Federal Building 

Fund may be transferred with advance approval from the Committees on Appropriations. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
221 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Extension of Policies— 

(1) In general-The Secretary shall extend through August 31, 

ø2006,¿ 2007, and may extend through December 31, ø2006,¿ 

2007, the termination date of any insurance policy that the Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier under subsection (a) and that is in effect on the date of enactment of this 

subsection on no less favorable terms to the air carrier than 

existed on June 19, 2002; except that the Secretary shall 

amend the insurance policy, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add coverage for losses 

or injuries to aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at the limits 

carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries as of such 

date of enactment and at an additional premium comparable 

to the premium charged for third-party casualty coverage 

under such policy. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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,¿ 2007, 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. 

* * * * * * * 

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, 

THE JUICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCICES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 

(Public Law 105–119) 

SEC. 122. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
222 

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 

paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish, for a period of ø8¿ 9 years from date of enactment of this provision, a personnel management demonstration project providing 

for the compensation and performance management of not more 

than a combined total of 950 employees who fill critical scientific, 

technical, engineering, intelligence analyst, language translator, 

and medical positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 3333 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 3333. Relief for payments made without negligence 

(a)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(3) The amount of the relief shall be charged to the Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343). A recovery or repayment of 

a loss for which replacement is made out of the fund shall be credited to the fund and is available for the purposes for which the 

fund was established.¿ 

(3) The amount of the relief, and the amount of any relief granted 

to an official or agent of the Department of the Treasury under section 3527 of this title, shall be charged to the Check Forgery Insurance Fund under section 3343 of this title. A recovery or repayment 

of a loss for which replacement is made out of the fund shall be 

credited to the fund and is available for the purposes for which the 

fund was established. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES

SEC. 203. (a) * * * 

(b) To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage 

shall comply with the following: 

(1) * * * 

(2) Involve a principal obligation (including such initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and other fees as the Secretary shall approve) in an amount— 

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 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
223 

price; or in the case of a 4-family residence, 150 percent of such median price; or¿ 

(A) not to exceed the lesser of— 

(i) the median house price in the area, as determined 

by the Secretary; or 

(ii) ø87 percent of¿ the dollar amount limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home 

Loan Mortgage Corporation Act 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 

the date of the enactment of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, 

and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act øfor 

Fiscal Year¿, 1999 or ø48¿ 65 percent of the dollar 

limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of the 

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act 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 appraised 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.¿ 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(9) Be executed by a mortgagor who shall have paid on account of the property (except with respect to a mortgage executed by a mortgagor who is a veteran) at least 3 per centum, 

or such larger amount as the Secretary may determine, of the 

Secretary’s estimate of the cost of acquisition (excluding the 

mortgage insurance premium paid at the time the mortgage is 

insured) in cash or its equivalent: Provided, That with respect 

to a mortgage executed by a mortgagor who is sixty years of 

age or older as of the date the mortgage is endorsed for insurVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
224 

ance or with respect to a mortgage meeting the requirements 

of subsection (i) of this section, or with respect to a mortgage 

covering a single-family home being purchased under the lowincome housing demonstration project assisted pursuant to section 207 of the Housing Act of 1961, or with respect to a mortgage covering a housing unit in connection with a homeownership program under the Homeownership and Opportunity 

Through HOPE Act, the mortgagor’s payment required by this 

subsection may be paid by a corporation or person other than 

the mortgagor under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe: Provided further, That for¿ (9) Be executed by a mortgagor who shall have paid on account of the 

property, in cash or its equivalent, an amount, if any, as the 

Secretary may determine based on factors determined by the 

Secretary and commensurate with the likelihood of default. For 

purposes of this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider as 

cash or its equivalent any amounts borrowed from a family 

member (as such term is defined in section 201), subject only 

to the requirements that, in any case in which the repayment 

of such borrowed amounts is secured by a lien against the 

property, such lien shall be subordinate to the mortgage and 

the sum of the principal obligation of the mortgage and the obligation secured by such lien may not exceed 100 percent of the 

appraised value of the property plus any initial service 

charges, appraisal, inspection, and other fees in connection 

with the mortgage. 

(c)(1) * * * 

(2) øNotwithstanding¿ Except as provided in paragraph (3) and 

notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each mortgage 

secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling that is an obligation of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund or of the General Insurance Fund 

pursuant to subsection (v) and each mortgage that is insured under 

subsection (k) or section 234(c),, shall be subject to the following requirements: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) FLEXIBLE RISK-BASED PREMIUMS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—For any mortgage insured by the Secretary 

under this title that is secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling and 

for which the loan application is received by the mortgagor on 

or after October 1, 2006, the Secretary may establish a mortgage insurance premium structure involving a single premium 

payment collected prior to the insurance of the mortgage or periodic payments, or both, without regard to any maximum or 

minimum premium amounts set forth in this subsection. The 

rate of premium for such a mortgage may vary during the mortgage term as long as the basis for determining the variable rate 

is established before the execution of the mortgage. The Secretary may change a premium structure established under this 

subparagraph but only to the extent that such change is not applied to any mortgage already executed. 

(B) ESTABLISHMENT AND ALTERATION OF PREMIUM STRUCTURE.—A premium structure shall be established or changed 

under subparagraph (A) only by providing notice to mortgagees 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
225 

and to the Congress, at least 30 days before the premium structure is established or changed. 

(C) CONSIDERATIONS FOR PREMIUM STRUCTURE.—When establishing a premium structure under subparagraph (A) or when 

changing such a premium structure, the Secretary shall consider the following: 

(i) The effect of the proposed premium structure on the 

Secretary’s ability to meet the operational goals of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund as provided in section 

202(a). 

(ii) Underwriting variables. 

(iii) The extent to which new pricing under the proposed 

premium structure has potential for acceptance in the private market. 

(iv) The administrative capability of the Secretary to administer the proposed premium structure. 

(v) The effect of the proposed premium structure on the 

Secretary’s ability to maintain the availability of mortgage 

credit and provide stability to mortgage markets. 

* * * * * * * 

INSURANCE OF HOME EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES FOR ELDERLY

HOMEOWNERS

SEC. 255. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) LIMITATION ON INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—øThe aggregate number of mortgages insured under this section may not exceed 

250,000.¿ In no case may the benefits of insurance under this section exceed the maximum dollar amount øestablished under section 

203(b)(2) for 1-family residences in the area in which the dwelling 

subject to the mortgage under this section is located¿ limitation established under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a 1-family residence. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) PROTECTION OF HOMEOWNER AND LENDER.— 

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in order 

to further the purposes of the program authorized in this section, the Secretary shall take any action necessary— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) to provide any mortgagee under this section with 

funds not to exceed the ølimitations¿ limitation in subsection (g) to which the mortgagee is entitled under the 

terms of the insured mortgage or ancillary contracts authorized in this section. 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE 

* * * * * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
226 

TITLE 2—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 16—PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2–1607. Appropriation; public grants and private contributions. 

(a) øThere are authorized to be appropriated through the Court 

Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (or, until such Agency assumes its duties pursuant to § 24– 

133(a), through the Trustee appointed pursuant to § 24–132) in 

each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 

chapter. Funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall be 

transmitted by the Agency (or, if applicable, by the Trustee) to the 

Service.¿ There are authorized to be appropriated to the Service in 

each fiscal year such funds as may be necessary to carry out this 

chapter. The Service may arrange by contract or otherwise for the 

disbursement of appropriated funds, procurement, and the provision of other administrative support functions by the General Services Administration or by other agencies or entities, not subject to 

the provisions of the District of Columbia Code or any law or regulation adopted by the District of Columbia Government concerning 

disbursement of funds, procurement, or other administrative support functions. The Service shall submit an annual appropriations 

request to the Office of Management and Budget. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 24—PRISONERS AND THEIR 

TREATMENT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 1—TRANSFER OF PRISON SYSTEM TO 

FEDERAL AUTHORITY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—OFFENDER SUPERVISION AND 

PAROLE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 24–133. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) RECEIPT AND TRANSMITTAL OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC

DEFENDER SERVICE.—The Director of the Agency shall receive and 

transmit to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service all 

funds appropriated for such agency.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
227 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

DIVISION B—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2006 

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of Columbia 

and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 

and for other purposes, namely: 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL FUNDS

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

For a Federal payment for a school improvement program in the 

District of Columbia, $40,000,000, to be allocated as follows: for the 

District of Columbia Public Schools, $13,000,000 to improve public 

school education in the District of Columbia; for the State Education Office, ø$13,000,000 to expand quality public charter schools 

in the District of Columbia, to remain available until September 

30, 2007¿ $13,000,000 to expand quality public charter schools in 

the District of Columbia, of which $4,000,000 shall be for the direct 

loan fund and shall remain available until expended, $2,000,000 

shall be for credit enhancement and shall remain available until expended, and the remainder shall remain available until September 

30, 2007; for the Secretary of the Department of Education, 

$14,000,000 to provide opportunity scholarships for students in the 

District of Columbia in accordance with division C, title III of the 

District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

199; 118 Stat. 126), of which up to $1,000,000 may be used to administer and fund assessments. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3—ORGANIZATION OF GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL 

Sec. 

301. Establishment. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—FUNDS 

ø321. General Supply Fund. 

ø322. Information Technology Fund.¿ 

321. Acquisition Services Fund. 

* * * * * * * 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
228 

SUBCHAPTER III—FUNDS 

§ 321. øGeneral Supply¿ Acquisition Services Fund 

(a) EXISTENCE.—The øGeneral Supply¿ Acquisition Services Fund 

(the Fund) is a special fund in the Treasury. The Fund shall replace the General Supply Fund and the Information Technology 

Fund. Capital assets and balances remaining in the General Supply 

Fund and the Information Technology Fund as in existence immediately before February 1, 2007 shall be transferred to the Acquisition Services Fund and shall be merged with and be available for 

the purposes of the Acquisition Services Fund. Any liabilities, commitments, and obligations of the General Supply Fund and the Information Technology Fund as in existence immediately before February 1, 2007 shall be assumed by the Acquisition Services Fund. 

(b) COMPOSITION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—øThe Fund is composed of amounts appropriated to the Fund and the value, as determined by the Administrator of General Services, of personal property transferred from executive agencies to the Administrator under section 501(d) of this title to the extent that payment is not made 

or credit allowed for the property.¿ The Fund is composed of 

amounts authorized to be transferred to the Fund or otherwise 

made available to the Fund. 

(2) OTHER CREDITS.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Fund shall be credited with all 

reimbursements, advances, and refunds or recoveries relating to personal property or services procured through the 

Fund, including— 

ø(i) the net proceeds of disposal of surplus personal 

property; and 

ø(ii) receipts from carriers and others for loss of, or 

damage to, personal property. 

ø(B) REAPPROPRIATION.—Amounts credited under this 

paragraph are reappropriated for the purposes of the 

Fund.¿ The Fund shall be credited with all reimbursements, advances, and refunds or recoveries relating to personal property or services procured through the Fund, including— 

(A) the net proceeds of disposal of surplus personal property; 

(B) receipts from carriers and others for loss of, or damage to, personal property; and 

(C) receipts from agencies charged fees pursuant to rates 

established by the Administrator. 

(3) øDEPOSIT OF FEES.—Fees collected by the Administrator 

under section 313 of this title may be deposited in the Fund 

to be used for the purposes of the Fund.¿ COST AND CAPITAL

REQUIREMENTS.—The Administrator shall determine the cost 

and capital requirements of the Fund for each fiscal year and 

shall develop a plan concerning such requirements in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the General Services 

Administration. Any change to the cost and capital requirements of the Fund for a fiscal year shall be approved by the Administrator. The Administrator shall establish rates to be 

charged agencies provided, or to be provided, a supply of perVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
229 

sonal property and non-personal services through the Fund, in 

accordance with the plan. 

(4) DEPOSIT OF FEES.—Fees collected by the Administrator 

under section 313 of this title may be deposited in the Fund, to 

be used for the purposes of the Fund. 

(c) USES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Fund is available for use by or under 

the direction and control of the Administrator for— 

(A) procuring, for the use of federal agencies in the proper discharge of their responsibilities— 

(i) personal property (including the purchase from or 

through the Public Printer, for warehouse issue, of 

standard forms, blankbook work, standard specifications, and other printed material in common use by 

federal agencies and not available through the Superintendent of Documents); øand¿ 

(ii) nonpersonal services; and 

(iii) personal services related to the provision of information technology (as defined in section 11101(6) of 

this title); 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PAYMENT FOR PROPERTY AND SERVICES.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) PRICES FIXED BY ADMINISTRATOR.—The Administrator 

shall fix prices at levels sufficient to recover— 

(A) so far as practicable— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iv) the cost of personal services employed directly in 

the repair, rehabilitation, and conversion of personal 

property; øand¿ 

(v) the cost of personal services employed directly in 

providing information technology (as defined in section 

11101(6) of this title); and 

ø(v)¿ (vi) the cost of amortization and repair of 

equipment used for lease or rent to executive agencies; 

and 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) TREATMENT OF SURPLUS.— 

ø(1) SURPLUS DEPOSITED IN TREASURY.—As of September 30 

of each year, any surplus in the Fund above the amounts 

transferred or appropriated to establish and maintain the 

Fund (all assets, liabilities, and prior losses considered) shall 

be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

ø(2) SURPLUS RETAINED.—From any surplus generated by operation of the Fund, the Administrator may retain amounts 

necessary to maintain a sufficient level of inventory of personal 

property to meet the needs of the federal agencies.¿ 

(f) TRANSFER OF UNCOMMITTED BALANCES.—Following the close 

of each fiscal year, after making provision for a sufficient level of 

inventory of personal property to meet the needs of Federal Agencies, 

the replacement cost of motor vehicles, and other anticipated operating needs reflected in the cost and capital plan developed under 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
230 

subsection (b), the uncommitted balance of any funds remaining in 

the Fund shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury 

as miscellaneous receipts. 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 322. Information Technology Fund 

ø(a) EXISTENCE.—There is an Information Technology Fund in 

the Treasury. 

ø(b) COST AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of General Services 

shall determine the cost and capital requirements of the Fund 

for each fiscal year. The cost and capital requirements may include amounts— 

ø(A) needed to purchase (if the Administrator has determined that purchase is the least costly alternative) information processing and transmission equipment, software, 

systems, and operating facilities necessary to provide services; 

ø(B) resulting from operations of the Fund, including the 

net proceeds from the disposal of excess or surplus personal property and receipts from carriers and others for 

loss or damage to property; and 

ø(C) that are appropriated, authorized to be transferred, 

or otherwise made available to the Fund. 

ø(2) SUBMITTING PLANS TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET.—The Administrator shall submit plans concerning the 

cost and capital requirements determined under this section, 

and other information as may be requested, for review and approval by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Plans submitted under this section fulfill the requirements 

of sections 1512 and 1513 of title 31. 

ø(3) ADJUSTMENTS.—Any change to the cost and capital requirements of the Fund for a fiscal year shall be made in the 

same manner as the initial fiscal year determination. 

ø(c) USE.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Fund is available for expenses, including personal services and other costs, and for procurement 

(by lease, purchase, transfer, or otherwise) to efficiently provide information technology resources to federal agencies and 

to efficiently manage, coordinate, operate, and use those resources. 

ø(2) SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED ITEMS.—Information technology 

resources provided under this section include information processing and transmission equipment, software, systems, operating facilities, supplies, and related services including maintenance and repair. 

ø(3) CANCELLATION COSTS.—Any cancellation costs incurred 

for a contract entered into under subsection (e) shall be paid 

from money currently available in the Fund. 

ø(4) NO FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION.—The Fund is available 

without fiscal year limitation. 

ø(d) CHARGES TO AGENCIES.—If the Director approves plans submitted by the Administrator under subsection (b), the Administrator shall establish rates, consistent with the approval, to be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
231 

charged to agencies for information technology resources provided 

through the Fund. 

ø(e) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—In operating the Fund, the Administrator 

may enter into multiyear contracts, not longer than 5 years, to 

provide information technology hardware, software, or services 

if— 

ø(A) amounts are available and adequate to pay the 

costs of the contract for the first fiscal year and any costs 

of cancellation or termination; 

ø(B) the contract is awarded on a fully competitive basis; 

and 

ø(C) the Administrator determines that— 

ø(i) the need for the information technology hardware, software, or services being provided will continue over the period of the contract; 

ø(ii) the use of the multiyear contract will yield substantial cost savings when compared with other methods of providing the necessary resources; and 

ø(iii) the method of contracting will not exclude 

small business participation. 

ø(2) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—This subsection does not limit 

the authority of the Administrator to procure equipment and 

services under sections 501–505 of this title. 

ø(f) TRANSFER OF UNCOMMITTED BALANCE.—After the close of 

each fiscal year, any uncommitted balance remaining in the Fund, 

after making provision for anticipated operating needs as determined by the Office of Management and Budget, shall be transferred to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

ø(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Administrator shall report annually 

to the Director on the operation of the Fund. The report must address the inventory, use, and acquisition of information processing 

equipment and identify any proposed increases to the capital of the 

Fund.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5—PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IV—PROCEEDS FROM SALE OR TRANSFER 

* * * * * * * 

§ 573. Personal property 

The Administrator of General Services may retain from the proceeds of sales of personal property the Administrator conducts 

amounts necessary to recover, to the extent practicable, costs the 

Administrator (or the Administrator’s agent) incurs in conducting 

the sales. The Administrator shall deposit amounts retained into 

the øGeneral Supply Fund¿ Acquisition Services Fund established 

under section 321(a) of this title. From the amounts deposited, the 

Administrator may pay direct costs and reasonably related indirect 

costs incurred in conducting sales of personal property. At least 

once each year, amounts retained that are not needed to pay the 

direct and indirect costs shall be transferred from the øGeneral 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
232 

Supply Fund¿ Acquisition Services Fund to the general fund or another appropriate account in the Treasury. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER VI—MOTOR VEHICLE POOLS AND 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 604. Treatment of assets taken over to establish motor vehicle pools and transportation systems 

(a) * * * 

(b) ADDITION TO øGENERAL SUPPLY FUND¿ ACQUISITION SERVICES FUND.—If the Administrator takes over motor vehicles or related equipment or supplies under section 602 of this title but reimbursement is not required under subsection (a), the value of the 

property taken over, as determined by the Administrator, may be 

added to the capital of the øGeneral Supply Fund¿ Acquisition 

Services Fund. If the Administrator subsequently returns property 

of a similar kind under section 610 of this title, the value of the 

property may be deducted from the Fund. 

§ 605. Payment of costs 

(a) USE OF øGENERAL SUPPLY FUND¿ ACQUISITION SERVICES

FUND TO COVER COSTS.—The øGeneral Supply Fund¿ Acquisition 

Services Fund provided for in section 321 of this title is available 

for use by or under the direction and control of the Administrator 

of General Services to pay the costs of carrying out section 602 of 

this title, including the cost of purchasing or renting motor vehicles 

and related equipment and supplies. 

(b) SETTING PRICES TO RECOVER COSTS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) INCREMENT FOR REPLACEMENT COST.—In the Administrator’s discretion, prices may include an increment for the estimated replacement cost of motor vehicles and related equipment and supplies. Notwithstanding section ø321(f)(1)¿ 321(f) 

of this title, the increment may be retained as a part of the 

capital of the øGeneral Supply Fund¿ Acquisition Services 

Fund but is available only to replace motor vehicles and related equipment and supplies. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 403 OF THE GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT 

REFORM ACT OF 1994 

(Public Law 103–356) 

SEC. 403. FRANCHISE FUND PILOT PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this section shall expire on 

October 1, 2006.¿ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
233 

SECTION 203 OF THE JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 

1990 

SEC. 203. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—The President shall appoint, by 

and with the advice and consent of the Senate— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Except with respect to the district of Kansas, the western district 

of Michigan, the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and the northern 

district of Ohio, the first vacancy in the office of district judge in 

each of the judicial districts named in this subsection, occurring 10 

years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill 

the temporary judgeship created by this subsection, shall not be 

filled. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the district 

of Kansas occurring 20 years or more after the confirmation date of 

the judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created for such 

district under this subsection, shall not be filled. The first vacancy 

in the office of district judge in the western district of Michigan, 

occurring after December 1, 1995, shall not be filled. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, occurring 5 years or more after the confirmation date of 

the judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created for such 

district under this subsection, shall not be filled. The first vacancy 

in the office of district judge in the northern district of Ohio occurring 15 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge 

named to fill the temporary judgeship created under this subsection shall not be filled. For districts named in this subsection for 

which multiple judgeships are created by this Act, the last of those 

judgeships filled shall be the judgeships created under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary, Compensation for Air Carriers .......... ¥$50,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for Airports ¥25,000,000 

Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Highways ...... ¥2,000,000,000 

Federal Highway Administration .............................................. ¥164,456,026.53 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier 

Safety ....................................................................................... ¥27,122,669 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National 

Motor Carrier Safety Program ............................................... ¥3,419,816 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations 

and Research ........................................................................... ¥6,772,751 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National 

Driver Register ........................................................................ ¥8,553 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway 

Traffic Safety Grants .............................................................. ¥5,646,863 

Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus Grants .... ¥28,660,920 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
234 

Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment Grant .. ¥17,760,000 

Maritime Administration, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program Account .......................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

Maritime Administration, National Defense Tank Vessel 

Construction Program ............................................................ ¥74,400,000 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing, Housing Certificate Fund ................... ¥2,000,000,000 

TITLE VII—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

National Transportation Safety Board, Salaries and Expenses ..... ¥1,664,000 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions proposed in the accompanying 

bill which may be considered, under certain circumstances, to 

change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for 

more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic 

authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended 

availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding of 

agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. 

In addition, the bill carries language, in some instances, permitting 

activities not authorized by law, or exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which has been carried in appropriations 

acts for many years. 

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception 

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Secretary of the Treasury and the National Transportation 

Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 

appropriations Acts. The bill includes a number of limitations on 

the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. 

Similar limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations 

Acts. Language is included in several instances permitting certain 

funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended. 

In Title VII of the bill, in connection with the General Services 

Administration, certain limitations on availability of revenue in the 

federal buildings fund and certain legislative provisions have been 

carried forward from last year. 

The bill continues a number of general provisions applying to 

agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions applying 

government-wide. These provisions have been carried in the prior 

year appropriations bill, and some have been carried for many 

years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number of new general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ specifying certain amounts for individual offices of the 

Office of the Secretary and official reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer authority among offices. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
235 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Transportation planning, research, and development’’ which provides funds 

for conducting transportation planning, research, systems development, development activities and making grants, and makes funds 

available until expended. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on a competitive 

basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the transfer for any 

funds to the Working Capital Fund with approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 

program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business resource center’’ which limits the amount of loans that 

can be subsidized, and provides funds for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business outreach’’ specifying that funds may be used for business 

opportunities related to any mode of transportation, and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Payments to air carriers’’ that provides funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider 

subsidy requirements when determining service to a community, 

provides funds to carry out 3 marketing incentive programs, and 

allows the Secretary to repay any funds borrowed from the Federal 

Aviation Administration to fund the essential air service program. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Compensation for air carriers’’ which rescinds funds. 

Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 102. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ‘‘Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses’’ to ‘‘Minority Business 

Outreach’’. 

Section 103. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation from approving assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

Section 104. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds to implement an essential air service local cost participation program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides funds for operations and research activities related to commercial space transportation, administrative expenses for research and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 

aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and maps sold 

to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
236 

placement; funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies transfer authority among offices. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that provides $8,000,000 for the contract tower cost 

sharing program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

agreement with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop aviation safety standards. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium 

pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time 

corresponding to the premium pay. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds from being used to operate a 

manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 

States. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds to purchase store gift 

cards or gift certificates through a government-issued credit card. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds for acquisition, establishment technical support services, improvement by contract or 

purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental facilities and 

equipment; engineering and service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
237 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that provides funds from 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research, engineering, and 

development, including construction of experimental facilities and 

acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and development; 

noise compatibility planning and programs; procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices 

and systems; grants authorized under section 41743 of title 49, 

U.S.C.; and inspection activities and administration of airport safety programs; and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with obligations in excess of 

$3,700,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that prohibits funds for the replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides not more than 

$74,970,615 for administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that specifies $10,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program and $10,000,000 for the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that rescinds contract authority above 

the obligation limitation. 

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring FAA to 

accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated equipment 

procured by airports, subject to certain criteria. 

Section 111. The Committee retains, with modification, a provision limiting the number of technical workyears at the Center for 

Advanced Aviation Systems Development. The modification raises 

the limitation from 375 in fiscal year 2006 to 380 in fiscal year 

2007. 

Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without 

cost’’ building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or 

space in sponsor-owned buildings, except in the case of certain 

specified exceptions. 

Section 113. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
238 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting funds 

to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 

Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

current terms and conditions of FAA’s aviation insurance program, 

commonly known as the ‘‘war risk insurance’’ program, for one additional year, from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2007. Although the underlying program is authorized until March 2008, 

certain provisions including premium price caps were set to expire 

at the end of this calendar year. The Committee recommendation 

preserves the status quo under this program, a savings of 

$125,000,000 from the budget estimate. Savings accrue because the 

bill’s provisions result in additional revenue from insurance premiums, which were assumed to be zero in the budget estimate for 

fiscal year 2007. 

Section 116. The Committee retains a provision that prohibits 

funds for engineering work related to an additional runway at 

Louis Armstrong International Airport in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Limitation on administrative expenses’’ that limit the 

amount to be paid together with advances and reimbursements received. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that limits the obligations for Federalaid highways and highway safety construction programs; limits the 

amount available for the implementation or execution of programs 

for transportation research, which shall not apply to any authority 

previously made available for obligation; authorizes funds for the 

motor carrier safety grant program, the amount of which shall be 

transferred to the Federal motor Carrier Safety Administration; allows the Secretary to collect and spend fees, which are available 

until expended; and that such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses and are not subject to any obligation limitation or 

limitation on administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, 

U.S.C. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that liquidates contract authority and 

rescinds unobligated balances with certain limitations. 

Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that distributes 

obligation authority among federal-aid highway programs. 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that provides 

additional funding to the transportation, community, and system 

preservation program. 

Section 123. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass included in 

Public Law 102–143. 

Section 124. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances from previous appropriations acts. 

Section 125. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances made available under section 188(a)(1) of title 

23, U.S.C. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
239 

Section 126. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

funds made available under section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C. 

Section 127. The Committee includes a new provision rescinding 

unobligated balances made available under title 5 of Public Law 

109–59. 

Section 128. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Marlboro, New Jersey highway project included 

in section 378 of Public Law 106–346. 

Section 129. The Committee includes a new provision that prohibits any of the funds provided in or limited by this Act from 

being used by the State of Alaska to develop, plan, design, or construct a bridge connecting the Island of Gravina and the community of Ketchikan or the Knik Arm Bridge. The provision also prohibits the FHWA from reimbursing the State of Alaska for these 

expenses. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor carrier safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying amounts available for the commercial driver’s license improvements program, border enforcement grants program, 

the performance and registration information system management 

program, the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 

deployment program, the safety data improvement program, and 

the commercial driver’s license information system modernization 

program. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs’’, 

including research and technology programs and commercial motor 

vehicle operator’s grants; and prohibits funds for outreach and education. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ that rescinds unobligated 

balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘National Motor Carrier Safety Program’’ that rescinds unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 

funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107–87, including a requirement that the 

secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that limits the availability 

of funds and prohibits the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, limits the availability 

of funds, and rescinds unobligated balances from prior year appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations from the Highway Trust Fund and rescinds unobligated balances from prior year appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that provides a limVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
240 

itation on obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, limits the 

availability of funds, and specifies the amounts for certain programs. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use of 

funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that provides 

$750,000 for the High Visibility Enforcement Program. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the amount 

of funds available for technical assistance to states under section 

410. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that rescinds unobligated balances from prior year appropriation Acts. 

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

funding for travel and related expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Safety and operations’’ limiting the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad research and development’’ limiting the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ authorizing 

the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the Railroad Revitalization 

and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger 

corporation’’ that provides funds for the maintenance and repair of 

capital infrastructure; limits the availability of funds; specifies 

funds for debt service obligations; directs the Secretary to approve 

funding for capital expenditures; prohibits the use of funds to subsidize operating losses; and prohibits the use of funds for capital 

projects not approved by the Secretary. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Efficiency incentive grants to the national railroad passenger corporation’’ that limits the availability of funds; allows the Secretary 

to make to make grants for the purpose of maintaining the operation of existing of new Amtrak routes, which should not be interpreted as to encourage or discourage adjusting existing routes or 

frequencies; the Secretary is authorized to reserve and transfer 

funds to the Surface Transportation Board to respond to the cessation of commuter rail operations, and grant those funds to the 

Corporation if no directed service orders have been issued; the Secretary may make grants after receipt and approval of Amtrak’s 

business plan, if in the interest of the transportation system; the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
241 

Secretary shall approve funding for operating losses only after reviewing a grant request for each specific route, which shall be accompanied by specific information; the Corporation shall achieve 

savings through operating efficiencies; specifies an IG report on the 

saving accrued; that prohibits the use of funds to subsidize net 

losses of food and beverage service and sleeper car service in the 

event the IG cannot verify losses; Amtrak shall submit a plan to 

improve the financial performance of food and beverage and first 

class service, including specific information; Amtrak shall submit a 

report on overhead expenses, including the expenses associated 

with intercity passenger rail reservations and ticketing; Amtrak 

shall reduce its system over head expenses; specifies funds for the 

managerial cost accounting system if the IG deems necessary; the 

IG shall review and comment on the managerial cost accounting 

system after its development; Amtrak provide a plan to improve its 

management cost accounting system, including a plan to improve 

or replace the Route Profitability System; the Corporation shall 

submit a comprehensive business plan, which shall include specific 

information on targets, accounting for such targets, description of 

work to be funded with costs estimates, and a timetable for completion of projects; the Corporation shall provide monthly reports; prohibits funds to be used for operating expenses not approved by the 

Secretary; the Corporation shall post all plans on their website; 

prohibits the use of funds until the Corporation agrees to certain 

conditions; the Secretary may condition the award of efficiency incentive grants on reform requirements; and prohibits funds to support any route on which Amtrak offers a discounted fare of more 

than 50 percent off the normal, peak fare. 

Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation Lifesaver. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ specifying the amounts for certain offices 

and the transfer authority among offices. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ prohibiting funds for a permanent office of 

transit security; specifying the amount to reimburse the IG for certain costs, and directing the submission of the annual report on 

new starts. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations 

from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of contract authorization 

for the operating expenses of the agency, limits the availability of 

funds, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Research and University Centers’’ that limits the availability of funds 

and specifies the amounts for certain offices and programs. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ that limits the availability of funds, 

specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
242 

and bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ in 

prior year appropriations Acts to be used in this fiscal year. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 

Section 163. The Committee recommends a new provision as proposed in the budget request that allows FTA to provide grants for 

100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus. 

Section 164. The Committee modifies a provision that allows unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ and 

bus and facilities under ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ to be used in 

this fiscal year for activities eligible in the year the funds were appropriated. 

Section 165. The Committee recommends a new provision which 

clarifies the calculations for determining the net costs of the San 

Gabriel Valley Metro Gold Line transit project. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures, contracts, and commitments as may be necessary. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ‘‘Operations and Maintenance’’ that provides 

funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Security Program’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Operations and Training’’ that provides dedicated funds for salaries and 

benefits of employees of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United States Merchant Marine 

Academy, and the State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance 

and Repair; and limits the availability of some funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Ship Disposal’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account’’ that provides for the 

transfer to Operations and Training and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ’’National 

Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program’’ that rescinds unobligated balances. 

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and retal payments 

shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

obligations incurred during the current year from construction 

funds in excess of the appropriations contained in this Act or in 

any appropriations Act. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ which specifies 

the amount derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ which limits 

the availability of a certain amount and allows up to $1,200,000 in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
243 

fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ that credits 

certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other 

activities incurred in performed of hazardous materials exemptions 

and approval functions. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ which specifies the 

amounts derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund and the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund, and limits their period of availabilitiy. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ that requires the agency to 

fund the one-call state grant program. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness Grants’’ which 

specifies the amount derived from the Emergency Preparedness 

Fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits funds 

from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary or his designee. 

Language is included under Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration, ‘‘Research and development’’ that limits the availability of funds and credits to the appropriation funds received 

from States and other sources for expenses incurred for training. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation. Language is also included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that authorizes the Office of Inspector 

General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and 

ticket agents. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,250,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, United 

States Code. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
244 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may 

be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for any grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 

days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 

funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced 

by the department or its modal administrations. 

Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing 

amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 

are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be 

available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Language has been included for Departmental Offices, ‘‘Salaries 

and Expenses’’, that provides funds for operation and maintenance 

of the Treasury Building and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of 

commercial insurance policies for real properties leased or owned 

overseas; official reception and representation expenses; unforeseen 

emergencies of a confidential nature; Treasury-wide financial audits and the period of availability and the transfer of these funds; 

information technology modernization requirements; and specifying 

certain amounts for individual offices of the Departmental Offices 

and specifying transfer authority among offices. 

Language has been included for the Department-wide Systems 

and Capital Investments Program that provides funds for the development and acquisition of automated data processing equipment, software, and services; provides transfer authority; limits the 

availability of funds; and restricts the use of funds to support or 

supplement IRS Operations Support or Business Systems Management. 

Language has been included for the Office of Inspector General, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides funds to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, including the hire of veVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
245 

hicles, and specifies amounts for official travel expenses, official reception and representation expenses, and unforeseen emergencies 

of a confidential nature. 

Language has been included for the Treasury Inspector General 

for Tax Administration, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides 

funds to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, the purchase and hire of motor vehicles and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and specifies amounts for travel expenses, 

official reception and representation expenses, and unforeseen 

emergencies of a confidential nature. 

Language has been included for the Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account to charge fees to a borrower associated with 

bankruptcy proceedings of the borrower. 

Language has been included for the Financial Crime Enforcement Network, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides funds for 

hire of vehicles; the travel and training of non-federal and foreign 

government personnel attending meetings or training involving domestic or foreign financial law enforcement, intelligence, and regulation; a specific amount for official reception and representation 

expenses; the purchase of personal services contracts; and assistance to Federal law enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement. Language is also included that limits the availability of 

a certain amount. 

Language has been included for the Financial Management Service, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides a certain amount for official reception and representation expenses and limits the availability for systems modernization funds. 

Language has been included for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides funds for the 

hire of passenger motor vehicles and laboratory assistance to state 

and local agencies with or without reimbursement. Language is 

also included with specifies the amounts for official reception and 

representation expenses and cooperative research and development. 

Language has been included for the U.S. Mint, ‘‘United States 

Mint Public Enterprise Fund’’ that identifies the source of funding 

for the operations and activities of the U.S. Mint and specifies the 

level of funding for circulating coinage and protective service capital investments. 

Language has been included for the Bureau of the Public Debt, 

‘‘Administering the Public Debt’’ that specifies funds for official reception and representation expenses and systems modernization; 

and provides that appropriations from the General Fund will be reduced as fees are collected, and that a portion of the funds are to 

be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for administration of the Fund. 

Language is included for the Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account that provides for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at certain rates; specific amounts for 

administrative expenses, the cost of direct loans, and administrative expenses to carry our the direct loan program; the cost of direct loans; and the principal amount of the direct loans. 

Language is included under Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Taxpayer 

Services’’ that provides funds for pre-filing assistance and education, filing account services, taxpayer advocacy services, services 

authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and dedicating funding for the Tax 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
246 

Counseling for the Elderly Program and low-income taxpayer clinic 

grants. 

Language is included for Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Enforcement’’ that provides funds to provide legal and litigation support, 

conduct criminal investigations, enforce criminal statutes, purchase 

and hire of vehicles, provide services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 

dedicating funding for the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement program and associated transfer authority. 

Language is included for the Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Operations Support’’ that provides funds for operating and supporting 

taxpayer services and tax law enforcement programs; rent; facilities services; printing; postage; physical security; headquarters and 

other IRS-wide administration activities; research and statistics of 

income; telecommunications; information technology development, 

enhancement, operations, maintenance, and security; hire of passenger motor vehicles; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and 

dedicating funding for information technology support, research, 

the IRS Oversight Board, and official reception and representation 

expenses. 

Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Business Systems Modernization’’ that provides for the business systems modernization program, including capital asset acquisition of 

information technology, including management and related contractual costs of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with operation authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and that restricts 

the use of the funds. 

Language is included for the Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Health 

Insurance Tax Credit Administration’’ to implement the health insurance tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107–210). 

Section 201. The Committee modifies a provision that allows for 

the transfer of five percent (three percent in the case of Enforcement) of any appropriation made available to the IRS to any other 

IRS appropriation. 

Section 202. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the IRS to maintain a training program in taxpayer rights, dealing 

courteously with taxpayers, and cross-cultural relations. 

Section 203. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

the IRS to institute policies and procedures that will safeguard the 

confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 204. The Committee continues a provision that makes 

funds available for improved facilities and increased manpower to 

provide efficient and effective 800 number help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 205. The Committee modifies a provision that directs 

$166,249,000 to be available for the Taxpayer Advocate Service; 

$166,101,000 from Taxpayer Services and $148,000 from Operations Support. 

Section 206. The Committee includes a provision that prohibits 

the use of funds to develop or provide free individual tax electronic 

preparation and filing products or services, other than the Free 

File program and the IRS’s Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax 

Counseling for the Elderly, and volunteer income tax assistance 

programs. This provision also prohibits the use of funds to develop 

or implement direct interactive electronic individual income tax 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
247 

preparation or filing services or products, or a return-free system 

as described in section 2004 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. The Committee understands 

this will not impact any current IRS taxpayer programs or services. 

Section 207. The Committee includes a provision that designates 

taxpayer service and tax law enforcement programs for fiscal year 

2007 and thereafter as made up of Taxpayer Services, Enforcement, and Operations Support appropriations. 

Section 208. The Committee includes a provision that allows for 

the transfer of up to 20 percent between the Taxpayer Services, 

Enforcement, and Operations Support accounts to implement the 

restructuring of the IRS accounts, following a 30 day notification 

of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 209. The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting 

funds made available in this Act to be used to enter into, renew, 

extend, administer, implement, enforce, or provide oversight of any 

qualified tax collection contract. 

Section 210. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Department of the Treasury to purchase uniforms, insurance, 

and motor vehicles without regard to the general purchase price 

limitation, and enter into contracts with the State Department for 

health and medical services for Treasury employees in overseas locations. 

Section 211. The Committee continues a provision that authorizes transfers, up to two percent, between ‘‘Departmental Offices, 

Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of the Inspector General’’, ‘‘Financial Management Service’’, ‘‘Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau’’, ‘‘Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’’, and the ‘‘Bureau of the Public Debt’’ appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 212. The Committee continues a provision that authorizes transfer, up to two percent, between the Internal Revenue 

Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

under certain circumstances. 

Section 213. The Committee continues a provision limiting funds 

for the purchase of law enforcement vehicles unless the purchase 

is consistent with vehicle management principles. 

Section 214. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

the Department of the Treasury from undertaking a redesign of the 

one dollar Federal Reserve note. 

Section 215. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

for transfers from and reimbursements to ‘‘Financial Management 

Service, Salaries and Expenses’’ for the purposes of debt collection. 

Section 216. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

pay demonstration program. 

Section 217. The Committee continues a provision that requires 

Congressional approval for the construction and operation of a museum by the Mint. 

Section 218. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act from being used to merge the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without the approval of the House 

and Senate committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 219. The Committee includes a new provision providing 

a technical correction to 31 U.S.C. 3333(a)(3), clarifying that the 

Check Forgery Insurance Fund is the appropriate funding source 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
248 

for disbursing errors for which relief has been granted under 31 

U.S.C. 3527. 

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-based rental assistance’’, which designates 

funds for various programs, activities, and purposes, and specifies 

the uses and availability of such funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-based rental assistance’’, which specifies 

funds for certain programs and limits the use of certain funds; 

specifies the methodology for allocation of renewal funding; directs 

the Secretary to the extent possible to pro rate each public housing 

agency’s (PHA) allocation; directs that those PHAs participating in 

Moving to Work, shall be funded according to that agreement; 

specifies the amount for additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen emergencies and portability; provides that additional tenant 

protection rental assistance costs be funded by prior year unobligated balances; provides for the transfer of funds to the Working 

Capital Fund; specifies the amounts available to the Secretary to 

allocate to PHA that need additional funds and for fees; provides 

the criteria to allocate a portion of Administrative Fees; and directs 

that all funds shall be only for activities related to the provision 

of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under section 8. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing certificate fund’’, which rescinds prior year 

funds; allows the Secretary to rescind funds from other accounts if 

there are insufficient unobligated balances; directs the Secretary to 

report where the rescission is taken; and identifying which balances are available for rescission. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public housing capital fund’’, which limits the availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver authorities 

and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; specifies 

the total amount available for certain activities; prohibits funds 

from being used for certain purposes; and specifies the amount for 

grants, support services, service coordinators and congregate services, to support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships, and to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and 

Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public housing operating fund’’, which sets the basis 

for the allocation of funds; specifies the amount for bonus funds 

and technical assistance; and prohibits the use of funds under certain conditions. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native American Housing Block Grants’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for allocation; 

specifies the amounts for technical assistance and capacity building, to support the inspection of Indian housing units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total principal amount of any notes, 

and the cost of guaranteed notes, which are defined in section 502 

of the Congressional budget Act of 1974. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
249 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant’’, which limits the availability of funds and specifies the amount for training 

and technical activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a 

dedicated amount for administrative expenses and allows for its 

transfer to ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program 

Account’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a 

dedicated amount for administrative expenses and allows for its 

transfer to ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS’’, 

which limits availability of funds, sets forth certain requirements 

for the allocation and renewal of funds and contracts, and specifies 

funds available for training, oversight, and technical assistance activities, and the amount available for transfer to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community development fund’’, which specifies the 

allocation of certain funds; limits the use and availability of certain 

funds; specifies the amount made available for grants to federallyrecognized Indian tribes, emergencies, Economic Development Initiatives with certain restrictions, and neighborhood initiatives with 

certain restrictions; and makes technical changes to the uses of certain funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Home investment partnerships program’’, which 

limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain 

funds for certain purposes; and provides for the transfer of funds 

to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 

Program’’, which limits the availability of funds and specifies the 

allocation of certain funds for certain purposes. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Homeless assistance grants’’, which limits the availability of funds; establishes certain minimum funding and matching requirements; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; directs the Secretary to renew contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs 

with other social service providers; and provides for the transfer of 

funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’, which limits the 

availability of funds; specifies the amount for certain programs; 

specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and 

provides for the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
250 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for the elderly’’, which specifies the allocation of certain funds; designates certain funds to be used only for 

certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions 

governing contract terms; and provides for the transfer of funds to 

the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for persons with disabilities’’, which specifies the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be used to 

renew certain contracts; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for the transfer of 

funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’, which limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Manufactured housing fees trust fund’’, which limits 

the availability of funds and permits fees to be assessed, modified, 

and collected, and permits temporary borrowing authority from the 

General Fund of the Treasury. 

Language is included under the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account’’, which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations 

to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; allows 

for the transfer of funds ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, and the Working Capital Fund; allows for additional 

contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain 

levels. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘General and Special Risk Program Account’’, which 

limits the amount of commitments to guarantee loans; specifies 

funds for specific purposes; and allows for the transfer of funds 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, and the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Government National Mortgage Association’’, which 

limits new commitments to issue guarantees, specifies amounts for 

administrative expenses, and allows for the transfer of funds to 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Policy Development and Research’’, which limits the 

availability of funds; specifies funds for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative, of which a certain 

amount is not subject to certain requirements, and that related activities shall be administered by the Office of Policy Development 

and Research; and specifies the amount for grants. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Fair housing and equal opportunity’’, which limits 

the availability of funds, authorizes the Secretary to assess and collect fees, and places restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying 

activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Lead Hazard Control’’, which limits the 

availability of funds, specifies the amount of funds for specific purVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
251 

poses, specifies the treatment of certain grants, and specifies recipient matching and application requirements. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration’’, which specifies 

the allocation of funds; identifies the transfer to ‘‘Management and 

Administration’’; sets forth certain authorities of, and requirements 

on, the office of the Chief Financial Officer; defines the point of obligation of funds; provides for funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund; and directs the Secretary to fill certain vacancies. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’, which limits the purpose 

and availability of funds, including funds transferred. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, which specifies a certain amount provided from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration, and directs that the IG shall have independent 

authority over all personnel issues within the office. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’’, 

which limits the availability of certain funds, directs the submission of a spending plan, specifies the amounts for certain activities, 

and permits temporary borrowing authority from the General Fund 

of the Treasury. 

Section 301 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors, as requested. 

Section 302 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act, 

which was proposed for deletion. 

Section 303 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 

HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

Section 304 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as requested. 

Section 305 continues language requiring funds appropriated to 

be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 306 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 307 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 308 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 309 continues language, carried in previous years, requiring submission of a spending plan for technical assistance, training 

and management improvement activities prior to the expenditure 

of funds. 

Section 310 continues language requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess 

funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 311 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
252 

gram in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 312 continues language setting certain requirements for 

the Department’s annual congressional justification of appropriations. 

Section 313 continues language carried in previous year elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

Section 314 relates to state authority regarding participation on 

housing boards. 

Section 315 continues language in precious acts specifying the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan recipients. 

Section 316 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 317 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for family 

unification upon turnover. 

Section 318 continues language clarifying that the projects selected by HUD for Section 202b assistance prior to December 1, 

2003 are also eligible to use the limited partnership ownership 

structure. No more than three commercial properties are authorized to receive grants under Section 202b of the Housing Act of 

1959. 

Section 319 continues language requiring that athletic scholarships for housing shall be considered part of adjusted income for 

purposes of eligibility for Section 8. 

Section 320 continues language requiring priority consideration 

for Moving to Work Demonstration applications from Santa Clara/ 

San Jose and San Bernardino. 

Section 321 clarifies the ability of HUD to have no more than 32 

active moving to Work Demonstration Agreements at any time. 

Section 322 requires the cancellation of contract authority from 

fiscal years 1974 and earlier upon contract expiration or termination. 

Section 323 continues language requiring the Secretary to maintain Section 8 assistance on certain properties occupied by elderly 

or disabled families. 

Section 324 clarifies that the Government National Mortgage Association is not subject to the accounting and budgetary requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

Section 325 begins the process of modernizing the Federal Housing Administration. These changes will begin the transition of FHA 

from a rigid, one-size-fits-all operating stance to a more flexible 

array of loan offerings designed to meet the individual needs of 

families not served or ill-served by the private marketplace. 

Section 326 makes a technical correction with regard to CDBG 

formula funding to the cities of Alton, Illinois, and Granite City, Illinois. 

TITLE IV—THE JUDICIARY 

Under Supreme Court, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ language is included permitting certain funds to remain available until expended 

and specifying certain amounts for specific purposes. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
253 

Under Supreme Court, ‘‘Care of the Building and Grounds’’ language is included permitting funds to remain available until expended 

Under Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 

Services, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ language is included specifying 

certain funds remain available until expended for specific purposes. 

Language is also included providing funding from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund for certain purposes. 

Under Defender Services, language is included permitting funds 

to remain available until expended. 

Under Fees of Jurors and Commissioners, language is included 

permitting funds to remain available until expended and specifying 

limitations for the compensation of land commissioners. 

Under Court Security, language is included permitting certain 

funds to remain available until expended, which may be transferred to the United States Marshals Service. 

Under Administrative Office of the United States Courts, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ language is included specifying certain amounts 

for official reception and representation expenses. 

Under Federal Judicial Center, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ language 

is included permitting certain funds to remain available until expended for education and training, and specifying certain amounts 

for official reception and representation expenses. 

Under Judicial Retirement Funds, ‘‘Payment to Judiciary Trust 

Funds’’ language is included specifying certain amounts for payments to specific trust funds. 

Under United States Sentencing Commission, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ language is included specifying certain amounts for official 

reception and representation expenses. 

Section 401. The Committee continues language to permit funds 

in the bill for salaries and expenses for the Judiciary to be available for employment of experts and consultant services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

Section 402. The Committee continues language that permits up 

to 5 percent of any appropriation made available for fiscal year 

2007 to be transferred between Judiciary appropriations accounts 

provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5 

percent or increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfer 

except in certain circumstances. In addition, the language provided 

that any such transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming of 

funds under sections 805 and 810 of the accompanying bill and 

shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section. 

Section 403. The Committee continues language authorizing not 

to exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. 

Section 404. The Committee continues language requiring a financial plan for the Judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this 

Act. 

Section 405. The Committee includes language amending the Judicial Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650). 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
254 

TITLE V—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support’’ 

provides that the amount appropriated shall remain available until 

expended; specifies conditions for the use, award, and financial accounting of funds; requires a quarterly financial report; and specifies the amount available for administrative expenses. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and 

Security Costs in the District of Columbia’’ provides that the 

amount appropriated shall remain available until expended, is 

available for reimbursement for certain events, and is available 

only after it has been apportioned pursuant to chapter 15 of title 

31, U.S.C. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to the District of Columbia 

Courts’’: (1) provides that all amounts under this heading shall be 

apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget 

and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies, with 

payroll and financial services to be provided on a contractual basis 

with the General Services Administration; (2) specifies certain 

amounts for specific purposes; (3) allows funds made available for 

capital improvements to remain available until September 30, 

2008; and (4) provides for the reallocation of funds. 

Language under ‘‘Defender Services in the District of Columbia 

Courts’’: (1) provides that the amount appropriated shall remain 

available until expended; (2) authorizes funds provided in other appropriations to be used for payments under this heading; (3) specifies who shall administer these funds; and (4) provides that all 

amounts under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the 

Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in 

the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses 

of other Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services to be 

provided on a contractual basis with the General Services Administration. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia’’: (1) specifies certain amounts for specific purposes and programs; (2) provides that all amounts under this heading shall be apportioned 

quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget and obligated 

and expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies; (3) authorizes the Director to accept and use gifts to support offender and defendant 

programs and equipment and vocational training services to educate and train offenders and defendants, and details for recording 

the acceptance of such gifts; and (4) authorizes the Director to 

charge fees to cover the costs of training and materials distributed 

at conferences. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to District of Columbia Public 

Defender Service’’ provides that all amounts under this heading 

shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and 

Budget and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 

appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to the District of Columbia 

Water and Sewer Authority’’ provides that the amount approVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:22 Jun 12, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\PICKUP\HR495.XXX HR495

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
255 

priated shall remain available until expended and that the District 

shall provide a 100 percent match. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council’’ provides that the amount appropriated shall 

remain available until expended to support initiatives related to 

the coordination of Federal and local criminal justice resources. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia’’ provides funds for 

projects as identified in the Statement of the Managers, and that 

recipients shall submit a budget and reports on the activities to be 

carried out with the identified funds. 

Language under ‘‘Federal Payment for School Improvement’’ provides certain amounts for specific purposes, including funds to expand quality public charter schools in the District of Columbia, 

which shall remain available until September 20, 2008. 

Language under ‘‘District of Columbia Funds’’ (1) limits the 

amount provided in this Act for the District of Columbia; (2) identifies the source of funds, including a rescission of prior year local 

funds; (3) establishes the District’s intradistrict authority; (4) sets 

funds subject to the provisions of and allocated and expended as 

proposed in the fiscal year 2007 District of Columbia Budget and 

Financial Plan; (5) provides conditions for increasing the amount 

provided; and (6) directs the Chief Financial Officer to assure the 

District of Columbia meets all requirements, but prohibits the reprogramming of capital projects. 

Section 501. The Committee continues the provision that specifies that an appropriation for a particular purpose or object shall 

be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 

said purpose or object. 

Section 502. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

funds for travel and payment of dues. 

Section 503. The Committee continues the provision that appropriates funds for refunding overpayments of taxes collected and for 

paying settlements and judgments against the District of Columbia 

government. 

Section 504. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of appropriation for publicity or propaganda purposes. 

Section 505. The Committee modifies the provision that establishes reprogramming and transfer requirements with respect to 

notification requirements. 

Section 506. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits use of funds only to the objects for which the appropriations 

were made. 

Section 507. The Committee continues the provision that clarifies 

the pay setting authority for District employees as the District’s 

Merit Personnel Act rather than title 5 of the United States Code. 

Section 508. The Committee continues the provision that directs 

the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit new fiscal year 

2007 revenue estimates as of the end of such quarter. 

Section 509. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the District government from renewing or extending sole 

source contracts without opening them to the competitive bidding 

process as set forth in section 303 of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
256 

Section 510. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of Federal funds for salaries, expenses, or other costs 

associated with the offices of U.S. Senator or Representatives 

under section 4(d0 of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention 

Initiatives of 1979. 

Section 511. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits Federal funds made available in this Act from being used to 

implement or enforce any system of registration for unmarried cohabitating couples. 

Section 512. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the mayor to accept, obligate, and expend Federal, private, and 

other grants received by the District government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this Act. 

Section 513. The Committee continues the provision that restricts the use of official vehicles to official duties and not between 

a residence and workplace, except in the case of a police officer who 

resides in the District of Columbia at the discretion of the Chief, 

an officer or employee of the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical 

Services Department who resides in the District of Columbia and 

is on call 24 hours a day, the mayor of the District of Columbia, 

and the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. 

Section 514. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of funds for the audit of the District government’s 

annual financial statements unless the DC Inspector General either conducts, or contracts for, the audit. 

Section 515. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of appropriated funds by the Corporation Counsel or 

any other officer or entity of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks to require 

Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 516. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of any funds in the Act to carry out any program of 

distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection 

of any illegal drug. 

Section 517. The Committee continues the provision that requires the Chief Financial Officers of the District of Columbia to 

certify that they understand the duties and restrictions applicable 

to their agency as a result of this Act. 

Section 518. The Committee continues the provision that includes a ‘‘conscience clause’’ on legislation that pertains to contraceptive coverage by health insurance plans. 

Section 519. The Committee continues the provision that requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit quarterly 

reports on various issues pertaining to the District of Columbia. 

Section 520. The Committee continues the provision that requires the CFO to submit a revised appropriated funds operating 

budget in the format of the budget that the District government 

submitted pursuant to section 442 of the DC Home Rule Act for all 

agencies no later than 30 calendar days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Section 521. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits the use of any funds in the Act to: (1) pay the fees of an attorney who represents a party in an action or any attorney who defends any action, including an administrative proceeding, brought 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
257 

against D.C. Public Schools under the Individuals With Disabilities 

Act (IDEA) in excess of $4,000 for that action; (2) pay the fees of 

an attorney or firm whom the CFO determines to have a pecuniary 

interest, either through an attorney, officer or employee of the firm, 

in any special education diagnostic services, schools, or other special education service providers; and (3) require all savings to be 

used to expand special education services within the District. 

Section 522. The Committee continues the provision that requires attorneys in special education cases brought under IDEA to 

comply with several reporting requirements and allow the Inspector General to conduct investigations to determine the accuracy of 

the certifications. 

Section 523. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for appropriations in this Act to be increased by no more than 

$42,000,000 from unexpended general funds, and may be used only 

for one-time expenditures, to avoid deficit spending, for debt reductions, for program needs, or to avoid revenue shortfalls. 

Section 524. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

the District to spend ‘‘Other-Type Funds’’ under certain conditions. 

Section 525. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for short-term borrowing from the emergency and contingency reserve funds established under section 450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 98–198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 

1–204.50a) under certain circumstances. 

Section 526. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to change the legality of marijuana use. 

Section 527. The Committee continues the provision relating to 

abortion. 

Section 528. The Committee continues the provision granting authority to the CFO with respect to personnel and preparing financial statement audits. The Committee directs the CFO to report to 

the Committees on Appropriations 30 days after utilizing this authority. 

Section 529. The Committee continues the provision exempting 

the CFO from certain provisions of the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act. 

Section 530. The Committee recommends a new provision which 

allows the Public Defender Services of the District of Columbia to 

operate outside of the Court Supervised Offender Services Agency 

for budgeting. 

Section 531. The Committee includes a new provision that makes 

technical corrections to Public Law 109–115 regarding ‘‘Federal 

Payment for School Improvement’’. 

Section 532. The Committee continues the provision which limits 

references to ‘‘the Act’’ as referring to only this title. 

TITLE VI—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Language under the Executive Office of the President and Funds 

Appropriated to the President, ‘‘Compensation of the President’’, 

provides that unused amounts of the President’s expense allowance 

will revert to the Treasury; mandates funds are only available for 

their stated purpose; and specifies an amount for an expense allowance. 

Language under the White House Office, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, provides funds for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
258 

subsistence expenses, hire of vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, teletype news service, travel, and official entertainment expenses. Language is also included specifying funds available for the Privacy 

and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 

Language under the Executive Residence at the White House, 

‘‘Operating Expenses’’, provides funds for official entertainment expenses of the President, and the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at the 

White House. 

Language under the Executive Residence at the White House, 

‘‘Reimbursable Expenses’’, specifies the authorized use of funds; 

specifies that reimbursable expenses are the exclusive authority of 

the Executive Residence to incur obligations and receive offsetting 

collections; requires the sponsors of political events to make advance payments; requires the national committee of the political 

party of the President to maintain $25,000 on deposit; requires the 

Executive Residence to ensure that amounts owed are billed within 

60 days of a reimbursable event and collected within 30 days of the 

bill notice; authorizes the Executive Residence to charge and assess 

interest and penalties on late payments; authorizes all reimbursements to be deposited into the Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt; 

requires a report to the Committee on the reimbursable expenses 

within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year; requires the Executive 

Residence to maintain a system for tracking and classifying reimbursable events; and specifies that the Executive Residence is not 

exempt from the requirements of subchapter I or II of chapter 37 

of title 31, United States Code. 

Language under White House Repair and Restoration provides 

funds for the repair, alteration, improvement, required maintenance, safety and health issues, and continued preventative maintenance of the Executive Residence at the White House and limits 

the availability of funds. 

Language under Office of Management and Budget, ‘‘Salaries 

and Expenses’’, provides funds for expenses, the hire of vehicles, 

carrying out provisions of chapter 35 of 44 U.S.C.; specifies funds 

for official representation expenses; directs that funds shall be applied only to items for which appropriations were made; prohibits 

the review of agricultural marketing orders and the alteration of 

certain testimony; prohibits the use of funds for the purpose of altering the transcript of testimony except for non-OMB officials; and 

specifies the amount of time to perform budgetary policy reviews 

of water resource matters on which the Chief of Engineers has reported before the report is considered approved, and specifies notification requirements. 

Language under the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, provides funds for expenses, research, official 

reception and representation expenses, participation in joint 

projects, and allows for the acceptance of gifts. Language is also included providing funds for policy research and evaluation and making these funds available until expended. 

Language under the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center 

provides funds for counternarcotics research and development and 

the technology transfer program, and provides for the transfer of 

funds to other Federal departments or agencies. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
259 

Language under the Federal Drug Control Programs, ‘‘High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program’’, provides a certain level 

of funding for State, local and Federal drug control efforts, and provides for the transfer of funds to Federal agencies and departments. Language is also included specifying the amount of funds 

for auditing and associated activities and for developing and implementing a data collection system, and regarding the availability of 

funds. 

Language under Other Federal Drug Control Programs provides 

funds to support a national anti-drug campaign for youth, a national media campaign, matching grants to drug-free communities, 

the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for the National 

Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, the National Drug Court 

Institute, the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, the 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, the U.S. membership dues to the World 

Anti-Doping Agency, and evaluation and research related to National Drug Control Program performance measures; limits the 

availability of funds; requires a certain level of funding for non-advertising services of the media campaign and the continuation of 

the corporate outreach program; provides for the transfer of some 

funds to other Federal departments and agencies; and specifies 

conditions for the expense of national media campaign funds. 

Language under Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice President, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, enables the Vice President to provide assistance to the President, 

services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, subsistence, and the hire for 

vehicles. 

Language under Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the Vice President, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’, provides funds for operation and maintenance of the official residence 

of the Vice President, the hire of vehicles, official entertainment expenses and provides for the transfer of funds as necessary. 

Section 601. The Committee continues language to permit the 

transfer of not to exceed 10 percent of funds from certain offices 

within the Executive Office of the President. 

Section 602. The Committee includes a new provision requiring 

a financial plan by the Director of the ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2007. 

TITLE VII—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language is included for the Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows 

for the credit to the appropriation of funds received for publications 

and training expenses. 

Language is included for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for expenses, the 

hire of motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 

nominal awards, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included for the Election Assistance Commission, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows for the transfer of funds to the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology for election reform 

activities. 

Language is included for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ that provides for the funds to be 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
260 

derived from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund, or any successor to 

these funds. 

Language is included for the Federal Election Commission, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that specifies funds for internal automated 

data processing systems and reception and representation expenses; authorizes the registration fees for FEC hosted conferences; 

and allows for fees collected to be transferred to and merged with 

the appropriation. 

Language is included for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of experts and consultants, hire of motor 

vehicles, and the rental of conference rooms; authorizes travel payments to public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel; 

and allows for fees collected to be transferred to and merged with 

the appropriation. 

Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, uniforms 

and allowances, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included for the General Services Administration, 

‘‘Federal Buildings Fund’’ that allows for revenues and collections 

to be deposited in the Fund; specifies the conditions under which 

funds made available can be used and designates certain projects 

that can be undertaken; limits the availability of funds; and requires the approval to change the amounts identified in the report. 

Many technical provisions have been included regarding use of 

funds in the Federal Buildings Fund that are not specifically authorized by law. Language has been included that limits project 

funds available for construction and repair and alteration of buildings not authorized by law. A more detailed analysis of the Federal 

Buildings Funds can be found in the General Services Administration chapter of this report. 

Language is included for General Services Administration, ‘‘Government-wide Policy’’ that provides funds for policy and evaluation 

activities associated with the management of real and personal 

property assets and certain administrative services; support responsibilities relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information technology management, and related technology activities; and 

services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

Language is included for General Services Administration, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ that provides funds for expenses for activities 

associated with personal and real property; technology management and activities; information access activities; agency-wide policy direction and management; other support services; and official 

reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included for the General Services Administration, 

‘‘Office of Inspector General’’ that provides funds for information 

and detection of fraud; and for awards in recognition of efforts that 

enhance the office. 

Language is included for the General Services Administration, 

‘‘Electronic Government Fund’’ that provides funds for conducting 

activities electronically, limits the availability of funds, and allows 

these funds to be transferred. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
261 

Language is included for the General Services Administration, 

‘‘Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents’’ that allows a 

portion of these funds to be transferred. 

Language is included for the General Services Administration, 

‘‘Federal Citizen Information Center Fund’’ that authorizes funds 

to be deposited in the Fund and limits the availability of funds in 

the Fund. 

Section 701. The Committee continues the provision that provides that costs included in rent received from government corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, repair and 

improvement shall be credited to the Federal Buildings Fund. 

Section 702. The Committee continues the provision providing 

authority for the use of funds for the hire of motor vehicles. 

Section 703. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds made available for activities of the Federal Buildings 

Fund may be transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress. 

Section 704. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for developing courthouse construction requests 

that do not meet GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial 

Conference. 

Section 705. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that no funds may be used to increase the amount of occupiable 

square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or 

any other service usually provided, to any agency which does not 

pay the requested rent. 

Section 706. The Committee continues the provision that permits GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) made against the government. 

Section 707. The Committee includes a new provision requested 

by the President that proposes merging the General Supply Fund 

and the Information Technology Fund into a new Acquisition Services Funds. The Committee does not include transfer language as 

requested. 

Language is included for the Merit Systems Protection Board, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, that provides funds for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference rooms, hire of passenger 

motor vehicles, direct procurement of survey printing, official reception and representation expenses, and administrative expenses to 

adjudicate retirement appeals, and provides for the transfer of 

some funds. 

Language is included for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 

Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, ‘‘Morris 

K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 

Policy Trust Fund’’, that limits the availability of funds, specifies 

an amount for financial audits, and provides for the transfer of 

some funds. 

Language is included for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 

Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, ‘‘Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund’’ that limits the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included for National Archives and Records Administration, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’, that provides funds for the hire of 

passenger motor vehicles, activities of the Public Interest Declassification Board, and the review and declassification of documents; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
262 

and authorizes the use of excess funds from the amount borrowed 

for construction for certain purposes. 

Language is included for National Archives and Records Administration, ‘‘Electronic Records Archives’’ that provides funds for the 

development of electronic records archives, research and analysis, 

design, development and program management; and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included for National Archives and Records Administration, ‘‘Repairs and Restoration’’ that provides funds for the repair, alteration, improvement, and storage; and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included for National Archives and Records Administration, ‘‘National Historical Publications and Records Commission Grants Program’’ that provides funds for allocations and 

grants for historical publications and records; provides of the transfer of funds for operating expenses; and limits the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included under the National Credit Union Administration, ‘‘Central Liquidity Facility’’ that limits gross obligations 

and administrative expenses. 

Language is included under the National Credit Union Administration, ‘‘Community Development Credit Union Revolving Loan 

Fund’’ that provides funds for technical assistance and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and official reception and 

representation expenses; and rescinds prior year unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Office of Government Ethics, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized by 

5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of conference rooms, hire of passenger motor 

vehicles, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included under Office of Personnel Management, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, medical examinations for veterans, rental of conference rooms, hire of passenger motor vehicles, official reception 

and representation expenses, advances for reimbursements, payment of per diem and/or subsistence allowances, the Enterprise 

Human Resources Integration project, the Human Resources Line 

of Business project, and the transfer of administrative expenses; 

limits the availability of some funds; directs that provisions shall 

not affect other authorities; prohibits for the Legal Examining 

Unit; and authorizes the acceptance of donations under certain conditions. 

Language is included for Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, rental of conference 

rooms, and the transfer of administrative expenses. 

Language is included for Payment to Civil Service Retirement 

and Disability Fund that authorizes payments of certain annuities 

from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. 

Language is included for Office of Special Counsel, ‘‘Salaries and 

Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
263 

3109, payment of fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Language is included for Selective Service System, ‘‘Salaries and 

Expenses’’ that provides funds for attendance of meetings, training, 

uniforms, hire of passenger motor vehicles, services authorized by 

5 U.S.C. 3109, and official reception and representation expenses; 

authorizes certain exemptions under certain conditions; and prohibits funds used in connection with the induction of any person 

into the Armed Forces of the United States. 

Language is included for the United States Interagency Council 

on Homelessness, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ that provides funds for 

salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and consultants. 

Language is included for the United States Postal Service, ‘‘Payment to the Postal Service Fund’’ that provides funds for revenue 

foregone; limits the availability of obligation of some funds; stipulates that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind is free; 

stipulates that 6-day delivery and rural mail delivery shall continue at not less than the 1983 level; prohibits funds from being 

used to charge a fee to a child support enforcement agency seeking 

the address of a postal customer; and prohibits funds from being 

used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices. 

Language is included for the United States Tax Court, ‘‘Salaries 

and Expenses’’ that provides funds for contract reporting and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and that travel expenses of the 

judges shall be paid upon written certificate of the judge. 

TITLE VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 801. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 802. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 803. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 804. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 805. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act to be transferred without express authority. 

Section 806. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to engage in activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act. 

Section 807. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

employment rights of Federal employees who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces. 

Section 808. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 809. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds by any person or entity convicted of violating the Buy 

American Act. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
264 

Section 810. The Committee continues a provision specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 811. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 812. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds used by the Executive Office of the President not be 

used to request any official background investigation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Section 813. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

that cost accounting standards not apply to a contract under the 

Federal Health Benefits Program. 

Section 814. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

non-foreign area cost of living allowances. 

Section 815. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP. 

Section 816. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for abortions under the FEHBP unless the 

life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of an 

act of rape or incest. 

Section 817. The Committee continues the provision waiving restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles, materials, and 

supplies in the case of acquisition by the Federal Government of information technology. 

Section 818. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to the determination 

that real estate brokerage is a financial activity. 

Section 819. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for eminent domain unless such a taking is employed for a public use but does not repeat the requirement for a 

study by the Government Accountability Office. 

TITLE IX—GOVERNMENT-WIDE PROVISIONS 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 901. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

agencies to pay costs of travel to the United States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned to foreign duty in the 

event of a death or a life threatening illness of the employee. 

Section 902. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its 

workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 903. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the Federal Government. 

Section 904. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used for 

quarter allowances and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 905. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing 

non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be in the continental 

U.S. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
265 

Section 906. The Committee continues the provision ensuring 

that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services. 

Section 907. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered through 

such programs. 

Section 908. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that funds may be used to pay rent and other service costs in the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 909. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

payments to persons filling positions for which they have been 

nominated after the Senate has voted not to approve the nomination. 

Section 910. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

interagency financing of groups absent prior statutory approval. 

Section 911. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Postal Service to employ guards and give them the same special police powers as certain other federal guards. 

Section 912. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S. 

Section 913. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees. 

Section 914. The Committee continues the provision limiting the 

amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of offices under 

certain circumstances. 

Section 915. The Committee continues the provision to allow for 

interagency funding of national security and emergency telecommunications initiatives. 

Section 916. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was not created 

solely or primarily to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 917. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual harassment. 

Section 918. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the payment of any employee who prohibits, threatens or prevents 

another employee from communicating with Congress. 

Section 919. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

Federal training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 920. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the expenditure of funds for implementation of agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are included. 

Section 921. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive agency personnel 

in support or defeat of legislative initiatives. 

Section 922. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

any federal agency from disclosing an employee’s home address to 

any labor organization, absent employee authorization or court 

order. 

Section 923. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds to be used to provide non-public information such as mailing 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
266 

or telephone lists to any person or organization outside the government without the approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 924. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds for propaganda and publicity purposes not authorized by Congress. 

Section 925. The Committee continues the provision directing 

agency employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform 

official duties. 

Section 926. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the use of funds to finance an appropriate share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. 

Section 927. The Committee continues the provision, with technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds (not to 

exceed $10,000,000) to the Government-wide Policy account of GSA 

to finance an appropriate share of various government-wide boards 

and councils. 

Section 928. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

breast feeding in a federal building or on federal property if the 

woman and child are authorized to be there. 

Section 929. The Committee continues the provision that permits 

interagency funding of the National Science and Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The report should include 

the entire budget of the National Science and Technology Council. 

Section 930. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

documents involving the distribution of federal funds to indicate 

the agency providing the funds and the amount provided. 

Section 931. The Committee repeals the provision extending authorization for agency franchise funds. 

Section 932. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

the use of funds to monitor personal information relating to the use 

of federal internet sites to collect, review, or create any aggregate 

list that includes personally identifiable information relating to access to or use of any federal internet site of such agency. 

Section 933. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide contraceptive 

coverage and provides exemptions to certain religious plans. 

Section 934. The Committee continues the provision providing 

recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the official antidoping agency. 

Section 935. The Committee continues a provision allowing funds 

for official travel to be used by departments and agencies, if consistent with OMB and Budget Circular A–126, to participate in the 

fractional aircraft ownership pilot program. 

Section 936. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to 

the Legislative Branch, and implementing limitations on the Coast 

Guard Congressional Fellowship Program. 

Section 937. The Committee continues the provision that restricts the use of funds for federal law enforcement training facilities. 

Section 938. The Committee continues the provision concerning 

the use of funds for the ‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative that were not appropriated specifically for that purpose. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
267 

Section 939. The Committee continues the provision regarding 

public-private competitions in reference to OMB Circular A–76. 

Section 940. The Committee continues a provision, with modification, providing that the adjustment in rates of basic pay for employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in fiscal year 

2007 shall be an increase of 2.7 percent. 

Section 941. The Committee continues the provision that prohibits executive branch agencies from creating prepackaged news 

stories that are broadcast or distributed in the United States unless the story includes a clear notification within the text or audio 

of that news story that the prepackaged news story was prepared 

or funded by the executive branch agency. This provision confirms 

the opinion of the Government Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005 (B–304272). 

Section 942. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds used in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United States 

Code or section 552.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Section 943. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before 

issuing the individual a government travel charge card and limits 

agency actions accordingly. 

Section 944. The Committee continues the provision limiting 

these general provisions to title V. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided 

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and 

local governments. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
268 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 075 HR495.001
269 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 076 HR495.002
270 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 077 HR495.003
271 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 078 HR495.004
272 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 079 HR495.005
273 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 080 HR495.006
274 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 081 HR495.007
275 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 082 HR495.008
276 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 083 HR495.009
277 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 084 HR495.010
278 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 085 HR495.011
279 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 086 HR495.012
280 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 087 HR495.013
281 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 088 HR495.014
282 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 089 HR495.015
283 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 090 HR495.016
284 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 091 HR495.017
285 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 092 HR495.018
286 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 093 HR495.019
287 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 094 HR495.020
288 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 095 HR495.021
289 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 096 HR495.022
290 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 097 HR495.023
291 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 098 HR495.024
292 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 099 HR495.025
293 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 HR495.026
294 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 HR495.027
295 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 HR495.028
296 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 HR495.029
297 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 HR495.030
298 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 HR495.031
299 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 HR495.032
300 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 HR495.033
301 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 HR495.034
(302) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JOHN W. OLVER 

Although there are serious deficiencies in the bill adopted by the 

Committee, it is a substantial improvement over the insufficient 

budget that was requested by the President for the agencies and 

programs funded within the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 

and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia and 

Independent Agencies subcommittee. The President’s FY 2007 

budget included significant cuts to aviation, essential air service, 

intercity passenger rail, public housing and community development programs below the Fiscal Year 2006 enacted level. In total, 

the President recommended nearly $3 billion in reductions to programs under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

Despite the Subcommittee’s allocation, the bill manages to reject 

at least some of the program reductions proposed by the President. 

For example, the bill restores a total of $306.9 million in funding 

for housing programs for the elderly and disabled which brings the 

programs up to the level funded in FY 2006. In addition, the bill 

includes $4.2 billion for the Community Development Block Grant 

program which represents a slight increase of $22 million above 

the FY 2006 level. The $1.17 billion increase above the President’s 

request will fund activities to serve over 6 million low- and moderate-income persons. 

With regard to transportation funding, the bill meets the aviation, highway and transit funding guarantees mandated by Vision 

100 and SAFETEA–LU. As such, the bill includes $3.7 billion for 

airport grants and $3.11 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control modernization program required by Vision 100. The bill also includes a $16 million increase for additional 

aviation safety inspectors. These funding levels represent dramatic 

increases above the President’s budget request and significant increases above last year’s level. As required by SAFETEA–LU, the 

bill includes $104 million in additional funding for transit and 

highway safety programs. 

A careful review of the bill, however, illuminates how the requirement to meet the transportation funding guarantees, combined with an inadequate level of discretionary resources, resulted 

in programmatic reductions or eliminations in virtually every other 

title of the bill. Simply put, it is exceedingly difficult to balance the 

resource needs of all of the agencies and programs included in the 

Subcommittee’s broad and far-reaching jurisdiction when a significant portion is protected in a legislative lockbox and the rest have 

to fight for scarce remaining discretionary resources. This is not intended to denigrate the importance of investing in our nation’s 

transportation infrastructure but rather a budgetary reality and 

challenge that the Committee must face. Housing programs for the 

poor are forced to compete with the funding needs of the Federal 

Judiciary; programs which support the war on drugs; the Federal 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
303 

payments for the District of Columbia; and numerous other agencies and programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. 

AMTRAK

The annual battles over funding for the National Passenger Railroad Corporation (Amtrak) have become so familiar that there is an 

element of de ́ja` vu. The bill includes $900 million for Amtrak which 

is $394 million below the FY 2006 enacted level. Amtrak’s own 

Board of Directors, each of whom were appointed by President 

Bush, stated that Amtrak needs $1.598 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 

in order to maintain service and for capital investments needed to 

assure basic safety and reliability of the passenger service. 

It is certain that the Committee’s funding level for Amtrak is 

woefully insufficient to ensure that our nation will continue to 

enjoy a nationwide intercity passenger rail system. Indeed, the 

funding level included in the Committee bill, if enacted, require a 

significant review of Amtrak’s current operations and a restructuring of the railroad’s route system. 

Over the last few years, there has been a consistent call by the 

Administration and majority party for Amtrak reform. Despite the 

fact that Amtrak is now on its third chief executive officer in less 

than four years and has not had a full Board of Directors in nearly 

three years, Amtrak—even with changing leadership—has made 

some significant reforms and progress. For example, Amtrak’s ridership has increased nearly 11 percent and reduced its corporate 

debt by nearly the same percentage. In addition, Amtrak’s injury 

rate has been reduced by 40 percent in two years which is a testament to the safety practices of Amtrak’s dedicated workforce. 

During the current fiscal year, Amtrak started to make reforms 

to the food, beverage and first class service as required in last 

year’s bill. The Fiscal Year 2007 bill requires Amtrak to make additional reforms to the Amtrak’s food, beverage and first class services so that these services are revenue neutral by October 1, 2008. 

The results of last year’s reforms are not yet fully known and 

therefore cannot be assessed. In addition, the bill requires Amtrak 

to reduce its system overhead expenses by 10 percent annually. 

The funding level provided in the bill would require Amtrak to 

achieve savings of $394 million in a single year. This is an unrealistic and unachievable goal. The Democratic alternative amendment that was offered and defeated in Committee would have provided Amtrak with an additional $400 million, of which $300 million would have been dedicated toward Amtrak’s capital needs and 

$100 million in efficiency incentive grants. 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

As mentioned above, the Committee bill reformed some cuts to 

housing and community development programs. In particular, the 

bill increases funding for the community development block grant 

program slightly above last year. 

The Committee bill has made substantial increases in the following areas: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
304 

• Homeless Assistance grants are increased by $209 million, 

or 16%, over Fiscal Year 2006; 

• The HOME Investment Partnerships program is increased 

$159 million, or 9%, over FY 06; and, 

• The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program is increased by $14 million, or 5%, over FY 06. 

But there are also some serious problems in other housing and 

community development programs in of the bill: 

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund: 

The bill includes $40 million for the CDFI Fund, a cut of $14.5 million, or 26.6%, below last year. While the bill is an improvement 

on the President’s request, which sought to cut the program down 

to just $7.8 million, the program has steadily declined in funding 

since FY 2001, when it received $118 million. CDFI provides funding for activities of local financial institutions who invest in redevelopment activities in economically-depressed areas, and every 

dollar of federal funding leverages 21 dollars in private investment. 

Housing for the Elderly is funded at last year’s level of $735 million. While the bill wisely rejects the President’s proposal to cut 

this program by more than 25%, the resource needs for elderly 

housing continue to grow as the baby boom population ages. 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities is funded at last year’s 

level of $237 million. Again, the bill wisely did not agree to the proposal of the President, who sought to cut the program by 50%, yet 

the funding level in the bill is still $18 million, or 7%, below what 

was provided in Fiscal Year 2004. 

Tenant-based rental assistance: The bill contains a cut of $100 

million below the President’s request for funding for renewals of 

tenant-based vouchers. Specifically, the cut is targeted at the administrative funding for Public Housing Authorities to administer 

the tenant-based rental assistance program, which is cut from 

$1.28 billion in the request, down to $1.18 billion. 

Project-based rental assistance: Funding for renewals is cut $200 

million, or 3.6% below the President’s request of $5.5 Billion. This 

cut could translate into as many as 34,000 fewer families receiving 

housing assistance. 

Rural Housing and Economic Development: This program provides resources to support comprehensive community development 

efforts in rural communities. It received $16.8 million in FY 06, but 

the Committee’s bill adheres to the President’s budget request zeroing out the program. 

The Public Housing Capital Fund is funded at $2.18 billion, a reduction of $261 million, or 10.7%, below FY 06. Funding for this 

account has declined steadily since FY 2001, when $3 billion was 

provided. There is a $20 billion backlog in public housing capital 

repair needs that this funding level would not address. 

The Public Housing Operating Fund is level funded, at $3.56 Billion. The Administration requested $3.56 Billion as well, yet HUD’s 

own budget documents report that the request will cover just 85% 

of the overall public housing operating requirement. In addition, 

the HUD budget submission does not take into account the increases in utilities costs that public housing authorities have experienced, and thus some argue that this funding level will only cover 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
305 

78% of the operating requirement. Clearly we need to do far more 

for the Public Housing Operating Fund than this bill provides. 

HOPE VI: HUD’s program for revitalizing severely-distressed 

public housing is zeroed out in the Committee bill. Here again, the 

Committee bill adheres to the President’s request to zero out 

HOPE VI. This is the fourth year in a row that the Administration 

has proposed eliminating the program. I am disappointed that the 

majority is once again attempting to eliminate this valuable program. The program received strong bipartisan support during 

House Floor consideration of last year’s T–THUD appropriations 

bill, and I am hopeful that we can work together to restore funding 

to the program as we move forward. 

Other housing and community development deficiencies: The bill 

cuts funding for Fair Housing Activities by $1 million, or 2.2% 

below the FY 06 level. Funding for Lead-based Paint and Hazard 

Reduction is cut by $35.6 million, or 23.7%, below last year. In addition, the bill eliminates funding for Brownfields Redevelopment, 

Section 108 Loan Guarantees, Empowerment Zones, and La Raza 

activities. I am hopeful that we can address these issues as the 

process moves forward. 

Last year’s Committee report recognized that the ‘‘snapshot’’ 

funding formula may have had an adverse impact on some public 

housing agencies in the section 8 voucher program. Public housing 

agencies who have lost funding under this formula are assisting as 

many as 100,000 fewer families than would have been the case had 

the ‘‘snapshot’’ funding formula never been implemented in the 

first place. I am hopeful that Congress will soon reform the flawed 

funding formula for the tenant-based voucher program. 

FULL COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During Full Committee consideration of the bill, I offered an 

amendment that would have increased funding for several critical 

areas of the bill. The funding would have been completely offset by 

slightly reducing the size of the tax cut for millionaires. I am disappointed that the majority rejected my amendment. The amendment would have provided the following increases: 

• $400 million more for Amtrak; 

• $40 million more for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; 

• $144 million more to restore the cut in Tenant-based housing vouchers; 

• $261 million more for the Public Housing Capital Fund; 

• $636 million more for the Public Housing Operating Fund, 

which is the amount that HUD’s own budget admits its request 

leaves ‘‘unfunded’’; 

• 100 million for the HOPE VI program; 

• $30 million for Rural Housing and Economic Development; 

• $65.4 million more for Housing for the Elderly; and 

• $24.4 million more for Housing for Persons with Disabilities. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
306 

OTHER ASPECTS OF THE BILL

The bill’s overall funding for the Internal Revenue Service is just 

0.9% above the enacted level for FY 06. I am concerned that we are 

not providing enough resources both for IRS services to taxpayers 

and for tax law enforcement, and I am hopeful that we can address 

these needs as the process moves forward. 

The bill does not contain any funding for the Youthbuild program. There is a pending proposal to transfer the program from the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Labor. I understand that the subcommittee on Labor, 

Health and Human Services, and Education intends to fund 

Youthbuild in the Fiscal Year 2007 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, and I welcome that. 

The bill provides $575.2 million for the Federal payments to the 

District of Columbia. Included within this total is a $23 million increase to the D.C. Courts for the renovation of the Old Courthouse. 

The President’s budget only requested $7 million for this purpose. 

The completion of the Old Courthouse will alleviate the cramped 

quarters in the Moultrie Courthouse. 

The bill does not include funding for the Navy Yard Metro within 

the District of Columbia portion of the bill, however, I am pleased 

that funding for this project was included within the Federal Transit Administration’s capital investment grant account. 

In addition, the bill continues a provision included in last year’s 

bill which allows the District of Columbia to administer locally generated funds. I am disappointed, however, that the bill continues 

to carry a variety of provisions which limit the District’s ability to 

exercise home rule. In particular, it is disappointing that the provision prohibiting the District of Columbia from using its own local 

resources to utilize every available tool to fight the spread of HIV/ 

AIDS. The District of Columbia has the highest incidence of new 

AIDS cases of all large cities in the country and a rate eleven times 

higher than the national average. 

The Committee bill does not include any funding for the Office 

of Personnel Management’s retirement system modernization program. The Office of Personnel Management currently manages 

144,000 drawers of paper records for federal employees. It is critical that adequate resources are provided to improve the processing 

of federal retiree annuities. As the bill moves forward, these resources must be restored. 

Among the independent agencies, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission grant program that is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration is funded at $7.5 million, the same level as Fiscal Year 2006. This program helps state, local and private institutions preserve records 

and publish important documents in our nation’s history and I am 

pleased that the Chairman restored funds for this program. 

The bill also includes a $2 million increase for the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB serves an important investigatory and safety function in determining the causes of 

major transportation crashes. The increase provided in the bill will 

allow the NTSB to hire additional investigators and safety experts. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
307 

Finally, I am pleased that the bill includes two general provisions that benefit our nation’s dedicated federal workforce. The 

first provision will ensure that civilian and military federal employees will receive a 2.7 percent increase in pay. The second provision 

continues the competitive sourcing provision that was included in 

last year’s bill. 

CONCLUSION

The bill adopted by the Committee improves upon the budget 

presented by the President, however, it still needs much work to 

address the problems that remain. I will continue to seek improvements outlined above as this bill moves through the Congress. 

JOHN W. OLVER. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING