36–671 PDF 

Calendar No. 272 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–131 

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

2008 

JULY 16, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1789] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1789) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 

Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

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

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $51,112,233,000 

Amount of 2007 appropriations ............................... 48,176,366,000 

Amount of 2008 budget estimate ............................ 47,999,562,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2007 appropriations .......................................... ∂2,935,867,000 

2008 budget estimate ........................................ ∂3,112,671,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Transparency in Congressional Directives ............................................................ 3 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 3 

Reprogramming Guidelines .................................................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Justifications ...................................................................... 5 

Title I: Department of Transportation: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 7 

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................... 19 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................................... 50 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ............................................... 65 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .......................................... 75 

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................... 87 

Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................... 99 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ....................................... 116 

Maritime Administration ................................................................................. 117 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ........................... 122 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration ................................... 125 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ............................................................... 126 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 127 

Surface Transportation Board ......................................................................... 128 

General Provisions—Department of Transportation ..................................... 128 

Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 130 

Executive Operations ....................................................................................... 131 

Public and Indian Housing .............................................................................. 137 

Community Planning and Development ......................................................... 146 

Housing Programs ............................................................................................ 167 

Federal Housing Administration ..................................................................... 171 

Government National Mortgage Association .................................................. 173 

Policy Development and Research .................................................................. 174 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ............................................................. 177 

Office of Lead Hazard Control ......................................................................... 179 

Management and Administration ................................................................... 181 

Office of Inspector General .............................................................................. 182 

Working Capital Fund .............................................................................. 182 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ............................................ 183 

Administrative Provisions ................................................................................ 183 

Title III: Independent Agencies: 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board .................... 186 

Federal Maritime Commission ........................................................................ 186 

National Transportation Safety Board ........................................................... 187 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 189 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................... 190 

Title IV: General Provisions This Act .................................................................... 192 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 193 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 194 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 195 

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 205 

Comparative Statement .......................................................................................... 206 
(3) 

TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES 

On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The Legislative 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a vote of 96–2. 

While the Committee awaits final action on this legislation, the 

chairman and ranking member of the Committee issued interim requirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1 are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. 

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. 

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the 

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. In order to improve transparency and accountability in the process of approving 

earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations measures, each 

Committee report includes, for each earmark: 

—(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where 

appropriate, the President; 

—(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there 

is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of 

the activity; and 

—(3) the purpose of such earmark. 

The term ‘‘congressional earmark’’ means a provision or report 

language included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, 

authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary 

budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 

a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. 

For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse) has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with Senate Rule 

XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the public at http:// 

appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ‘‘Members’’. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2008, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

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

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

mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

(obligational) authority is provided, as well as to discretionary 

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill 
4 

or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made 

pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said account 

in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 405) establishing the 

authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this 

Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds 

that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, project, 

or activity [PPA]; (3) increases funds or personnel for any PPA for 

which funds have been denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) 

proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports for a 

specific activity to a different purpose; (5) augments an existing 

PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is 

less; or (7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different 

from the congressional budget justifications or the table at the end 

of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. The table 

shall delineate the appropriation both by object class and by PPA. 

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a detailed 

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later than June 30. 

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should be 

submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or a situation that could not have been anticipated when formulating the 

budget request for the current fiscal year. Further, the Committee 

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 

not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it is the 

responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate 
5 

differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, 

to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies 

to Working Capital Funds and Forfeiture Funds and that no funds 

may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects 

or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected 

by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA 

above the amounts appropriated by this Act. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

While the Committee supports the concept of the Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART] as a method for evaluating programs 

by linking performance, goals, and benchmarks with funding decisions, the process has failed largely through the inability of the administration to establish meaningful benchmarks and program 

goals that can be used as a valid measure for the success of a program and its funding requirements/needs. In too many cases, the 

PART analysis appears to be overly subjective and designed to 

reach certain preconceived conclusions about a program’s validity 

and accomplishments and its budget needs. 

This approach reduces PART’s value as a tool for measuring the 

contributions of a program and to what extent a program should 

be funded. More troubling, OMB and Federal agencies have tended 

to accommodate an increasing amount of PART performance data 

in the budget justifications by eliminating fundamental and objective programmatic budget data that is critical to the work of the 

Committee. This trend has made it increasingly difficult for the 

Committee to perform a meaningful review of budget justifications, 

including the ability to conduct necessary budget oversight work as 

well as the ability to reach valid and comprehensive funding decisions absent a substantial amount of additional review and budget 

analysis. 

Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the agency, 

but instead are the primary tool used by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is aware that 

the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left to 

the agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In 

fact, OMB Circular A–11, part 6 specifically states that the ‘‘agency 

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

ensure their awareness of your plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.’’ The Committee is disappointed that none of 

the agencies funded under this act have recently heeded this direction. Nevertheless, the Committee expects all the budget justification to provide the data needed to make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data 

and presentations, it is important to ensure that, in the implementation of the PART analysis, vital budget information that the 

Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee directs that 

justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2009 budget request by 

agencies funded under this act must contain the customary level of 

detailed data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained in the funding table 
6 

included at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies 

shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the agency’s financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At a minimum, each 

agency must also provide adequate justification for funding and 

staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal 

year 2009 to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

for review by the Committee are unique to each agency in this act. 

Therefore, the Committee expects that the each agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in 

advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 
(7) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of October 15, 

1966 (Public Law 89–670) provides for establishment of the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is comprised of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Transportation for Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, and Administration; and the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, Chief 

Information Officer, the General Counsel and Public Affairs. The 

Office of the Secretary also includes the Department’s Office of 

Civil Rights and the Department’s Working Capital Fund. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $84,551,850 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 96,196,936 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,197,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and 

central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the 

overall planning and direction of the Department. It covers the immediate secretarial offices and the offices of the under secretary, 

assistant secretaries, general counsel and other support offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $95,197,000 for salaries 

and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $999,936 less than the budget request and 

$10,645,150 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 

5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary to another. 

The Committee recommendation continues language that permits 

up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the Secretary 

for salaries and expenses. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the 

budget estimate: 
8 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 request 

Immediate Office of the Secretary ...................................................... $2,196,870 $2,314,274 $2,314,274 

Office of the Deputy Secretary ............................................................ 697,120 736,833 736,833 

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................. 15,148,070 16,219,099 18,719,099 

Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy ................. 11,635,050 12,374,050 11,874,050 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs .............. 8,465,100 10,416,963 10,416,963 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............... 2,290,570 2,384,312 2,384,312 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration .......................... 21,879,740 26,007,990 24,007,990 

Office of Public Affairs ........................................................................ 1,908,450 1,987,803 1,987,803 

Executive Secretariat ........................................................................... 1,440,630 1,534,557 1,534,557 

Board of Contract Appeals .................................................................. 695,830 .......................... ..........................

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................... 1,263,550 1,334,596 1,334,596 

Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response ................. 5,129,720 8,299,072 8,299,072 

Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................... 11,801,150 12,587,387 11,587,000 

Total, Salaries and Expenses ................................................. 84,551,850 96,196,936 95,197,000 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the 

primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and 

control of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,314,274 for fiscal year 2008 for 

the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is the 

same as the budget request and $117,404 greater than the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting 

the Secretary in the overall planning and direction of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $736,833 for the Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget request 

and $39,713 greater than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the 

Office of the Secretary including the conduct of aviation regulatory 

proceedings and aviation consumer activities and coordinates and 

reviews the legal work in the chief counsels’ offices of the operating 

administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of 

the Department of Transportation and the final authority within 

the Department on all legal questions. 
9 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,719,099 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2008. The recommended 

funding level is $2,500,000 more than the budget request and 

$3,571,029 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in addition to the budget request in order to increase enforcement activities to better protect air travel consumers. The Committee is aware that most airline consumer complaints to the U.S. Department of Transportation 

are not investigated, but rather are simply tallied and published 

monthly. The administration has indicated that current budgets for 

the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings limit the number of investigations performed to only those involving complaints 

related to civil rights issues or service received by disabled passengers. However, many observers, including the USDOT Inspector 

General, have recommended that the USDOT should take a more 

active role in overseeing airline customer service, including investigation of more types of airline traveler consumer complaints, including flight cancellations. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer of the 

Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for domestic and international transportation matters. The Office administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and is responsible for international aviation programs, the essential air 

service program, airline fitness licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, computerized reservation systems, and special investigations such as airline delays. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $11,874,050 for 

the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended 

funding level is $500,000 less than the budget request and 

$239,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, review, 

presentation, and execution of the Department’s budget resource 

requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the Department’s programs. The primary responsibilities of this office are to 

ensure the effective preparation and presentation of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to ensure the consistency of the Department’s budget execution with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, to 

evaluate the program proposals for consistency with the Secretary’s 

stated objectives, and to advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes necessary to improve program effectiveness. 
10 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,416,963 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, the same as the budget 

request and $1,951,863 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the 

Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and 

on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships 

with Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and local governments and national organizations for development of departmental programs; 

and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are 

brought into the decisionmaking process. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $2,384,312 for the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, an amount 

equal to the budget request and $93,742 over the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with 

the operating administrations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human resource management, security 

and administrative management, real and personal property management, and acquisition and grants management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $24,007,990 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding 

level is $2,000,000 less than the buget request and $2,128,250 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news media on 

public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases, articles, 

fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the Secretary on opinions and 

reactions of the public and news media on transportation programs 

and issues. It arranges news conferences and provides speeches, 

talking points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary’s scheduling. 
11 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,987,803 for the Office of Public 

Affairs, which is the same amount as the budget request and 

$79,353 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy 

Secretary in carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,534,557 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget request and 

$93,927 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals was 

to provide an independent forum for the trial and adjudication of 

all claims by, or against, a contractor relating to a contract of any 

element of the Department, as mandated by the Contract Disputes 

Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend funding for the Board of 

Contract Appeals for fiscal year 2008 because the program was 

transferred to the General Services Administration in April 2007. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and 

disadvantaged business participation in the Department’s procurement and grant programs, and effective execution of the functions 

and duties under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as 

amended. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

level. 

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response 

keeps the Secretary and his advisors informed on intelligence and 

security issues pertaining to transportation. The office also provides support to the Secretary for his statutory and administrative 
12 

responsibilities in the areas of emergency preparedness, response, 

and recovery functions. Further, the office ensures that transportation policy and programs support the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, and the security of the 

Unites States. 

The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response is 

at the forefront of the Department’s response to transportation-related emergencies. To prepare for such events, the office coordinates and conducts the Department’s participation in national and 

regional exercise and training for emergency personnel; administers the Department’s Continuity of Government and Continuity 

of Operations programs; and coordinates DOT’s role in select international contingency plan and response initiatives. Additionally, 

the office provides direct emergency response and recovery support 

through the National Response Plan [NRP] and operates the Department’s Crisis Management Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the Nation’s transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week and is the Department’s focal point during emergencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,299,072 for the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The recommendation is 

equal to the request and $3,169,352 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. The Committee approves the request for four additional FTEs to carry out the emergency response functions of the 

office. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves as the 

principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information 

resources and information systems management. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,587,000, which is $999,986 less 

than the budget request and $213,749 less than the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $8,527,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 9,140,900 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,140,900 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity matters, 

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating 

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were 

denied certification or improperly certified as disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the Department’s conduct of its 

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on 

civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit dis-
13 

crimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,140,900 for the 

Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2008. The recommendation is 

identical to the budget request and is $613,900 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $14,893,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 9,115,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,115,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and 

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at 

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, 

research and development activities needed to assist the Secretary 

in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program 

is carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and 

private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $14,115,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, which is $5,000,000 more than 

the budget request and $778,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the 

following projects that are listed below: 

TPR&D 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

Virtual Accident and Injury Reconstruction Center, Mississippi State 

University, Mississippi.

$2,250,000 Cochran 

UVM Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, Vermont ................ 1,000,000 Leahy 

Transportation and Public Safety Traffic Information Exchange Pilot 

Project, Delaware.

500,000 Carper/Biden 

SR–520 Innovative Water Quality Protection Project, Washington .......... 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, Washington .................................... 250,000 Murray 

Washington State University Freight Transportation Policy Institute, 

Washington.

500,000 Murray 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, 2007 ..................................................................................... $118,014,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 1 ......................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 128,094,000 

1Proposed without limitation. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common administrative services to the Department’s operating administrations and 

other Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in the 

interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through nego-
14 

tiated agreements with Department operating administrations and 

other Federal customers and are billed on a fee-for-service basis to 

the maximum extent possible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on the Working 

Capital Fund for services to the operating administrations of the 

Department. The Committee, however, insists that the discipline of 

an annual limitation is necessary to keep assessments and services 

of the Working Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, 

the bill specificies that the limitation shall apply only to the Department and not to services provided by other entities. The Committee directs that services shall be provided on a competitive basis 

to the maximum extent possible. 

The Committee believes that the Department of Transportation 

should provide greater transparency in its budget justifications for 

the WCF as well as the OST offices that provide WCF services. For 

example, the justifications for the WCF do not indicate the sources 

of funding for the WCF. In addition, although only a small portion 

of the budgets for the Office of the Chief Information Officer and 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration are funded 

from direct appropriations, the justifications for those offices do not 

present the balance of funding between direct appropriations and 

reimbursements through the WCF. 

The Committee notes the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] 

published a report on March 31, 2005 that discussed the lack of 

clarity in the budget for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

In this report, the OIG recommended that ‘‘the OCIO disclose the 

full range of OCIO responsibilities and other sources of funding, including the departmental Working Capital Fund, in future-year 

budget submissions.’’ The Committee is looking forward to the upcoming report of the OIG on the budget for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, which the Committee expects will 

discuss issues similar to those raised in the 2005 report. 

In order to see greater transparency in the budget request, the 

Committee directs the Department to provide the following information in its fiscal year 2009 budget justifications: the amount of 

funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration from direct appropriations, and the amount of funding for those two offices from 

WCF reimbursements; a clear description of the WCF work that is 

completed under the appropriations cap, exempt from the cap, and 

completed under reimbursable agreements; and full supporting information for any request to lift the appropriations cap, including 

an inventory of work that cannot be supplied due to the cap. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2007 ......................................................................................................... $892,500 ($18,367,000 ) 

Budget estimate, 2008 ..................................................................................................... 891,000 (18,367,000 ) 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................. 891,000 (18,367,000 ) 
15 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small 

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for disadvantaged, minority, 

and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 

1990, this account records the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this program as well as administrative expenses 

of this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $370,000 to 

cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $521,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate and it is 

$1,500,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of 

$18,367,000 the same amount as the budget request and the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,970,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,970,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, 

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business 

firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of transportation-related projects that involve Federal spending. It also 

provides support to historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the administration since this program 

provides grants and contract assistance that serves Departmentwide goals and not just OST purposes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,970,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2008. The 

recommendation is the same as the budget request and the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total 

Appropriations, 2007 1 ............................................................................... $59,400,000 $50,000,000 $109,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 .............................................................................. ........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 60,000,000 50,000,000 110,000,000

1 From overflight fees or funds otherwise provided to the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742. 
16 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides additional funding for the Essential 

Air Service [EAS] program, which was created as a 10-year transition program to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program currently provides subsidies 

to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the United States. 

These are commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the act 

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

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

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

funds available to the agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2008, the administration proposes no appropriated 

funds for the EAS program, although the budget includes 

$50,000,000 for the EAS program to be funded by overflight fees 

collected by the FAA. The Committee recommendation provides a 

total of $110,000,000 for the Essential Air Service program, which 

is comprised of an appropriation under this heading of $60,000,000 

and $50,000,000 derived from overflight fees or funds otherwise 

available to the FAA. The Committee recommendation is 

$60,000,000 more than the budget estimate and $600,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Based on the latest projections from the Department of Transportation, the funding level 

that the Committee recommends is sufficient to continue air service 

during fiscal year 2008 for every community currently receiving 

service through the EAS program as of February 1, 2007. 

The Committee rejects a proposal in the budget request that 

would restructure the EAS program. The proposal would change 

the program by eliminating the ‘‘minimum requirements’’ for eligibility that are currently in place, allowing EAS funds to be used 

for ground transportation, and establishing a ranking of eligible 

communities in order to determine the order in which they would 

receive assistance. 

The following table reflects the points currently receiving service 

and the annual rates as of February 1, 2007 in the continental 

United States and Hawaii. 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/06) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

5/1/2007 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/06) 

ALABAMA: Muscle Shoals/Florence ...................... 60 19.5 $1,504,929 $123.04 12,231 

ARIZONA: 

Kingman ...................................................... 103 7.5 1,001,989 212.20 4,722 

Page ............................................................ 280 18.7 1,057,655 90.31 11,712 
17 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007—Continued 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/06) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

5/1/2007 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/06) 

Prescott ....................................................... 102 11.5 1,001,989 138.68 7,225 

Show Low .................................................... 168 14.8 779,325 84.01 9,277 

ARKANSAS: 

El Dorado .................................................... 108 6.0 937,385 250.04 3,749 

Harrison ...................................................... 77 14.6 1,406,078 154.09 9,125 

Hot Springs ................................................. 53 12.1 1,015,500 133.88 7,585 

Jonesboro .................................................... 79 10.2 937,385 146.97 6,378 

CALIFORNIA: 

Crescent City .............................................. 362 35.7 957,025 42.84 22,339 

Merced ........................................................ 55 25.0 799,604 51.15 15,634 

Visalia ......................................................... 44 13.9 799,604 92.21 8,672 

COLORADO: 

Alamosa ...................................................... 162 19.3 1,150,268 95.35 12,064 

Cortez .......................................................... 258 29.9 796,577 42.59 18,705 

Pueblo ......................................................... 43 11.2 780,997 111.13 7,028 

GEORGIA: Athens ................................................. 72 19.9 624,679 50.16 12,454 

ILLINOIS: 

Decatur ....................................................... 120 45.7 1,350,256 47.21 28,604 

Marion ......................................................... 122 36.0 1,126,810 50.06 22,507 

Quincy ......................................................... 108 24.8 1,532,891 98.64 15,540 

IOWA: 

Burlington ................................................... 96 24.9 943,793 60.51 15,598 

Fort Dodge .................................................. 94 21.7 1,080,386 79.38 13,611 

Mason City .................................................. 128 38.0 1,080,386 45.37 23,815 

KANSAS: 

Dodge City .................................................. 149 16.0 1,379,419 137.60 10,025 

Garden City ................................................. 201 33.0 1,733,997 84.01 20,640 

Great Bend .................................................. 120 2.6 621,945 380.16 1,636 

Hays ............................................................ 180 29.5 1,540,392 83.40 18,470 

Liberal ......................................................... 153 12.6 1,008,582 127.67 7,900 

Manhattan .................................................. 120 34.6 487,004 22.47 21,675 

Salina .......................................................... 93 5.9 487,004 130.95 3,719 

KENTUCKY: Owensboro ......................................... 105 14.6 906,262 98.86 9,167 

MAINE: 

Augusta ....................................................... 68 13.5 1,190,864 166.08 8,460 

Bar Harbor .................................................. 157 32.1 1,190,864 59.19 20,119 

Presque Isle ................................................ 276 51.7 1,201,476 37.11 32,380 

Rockland ..................................................... 80 20.4 1,190,864 93.27 12,768 

MARYLAND: Hagerstown ...................................... 60 18.7 854,452 72.96 11,711 

MICHIGAN: 

Escanaba .................................................... 114 32.4 908,903 44.79 20,291 

Ironwood ...................................................... 218 10.5 409,242 62.51 6,547 

Iron Mountain ............................................. 101 24.8 602,761 38.89 15,500 

Manistee ..................................................... 180 10.2 776,051 121.79 6,372 

MINNESOTA: 

Hibbing/Chisholm ....................................... 178 29.0 1,279,329 70.40 18,172 

Thief River Falls ......................................... 302 10.6 777,709 116.83 6,657 

MISSISSIPPI: Laurel/Hattiesburg .......................... 90 42.7 917,129 34.33 26,714 

MISSOURI: 

Cape Girardeau ........................................... 123 24.7 1,434,915 92.69 15,480 

Columbia ..................................................... 117 42.5 598,751 22.49 26,625 

Fort Leonard Wood ...................................... 86 26.4 519,858 31.42 16,543 

Joplin ........................................................... 72 35.1 849,757 38.69 21,964 

Kirksville ..................................................... 137 5.5 627,100 182.93 3,428 

MONTANA: 

Glasgow ...................................................... 280 5.7 922,103 258.00 3,574 

Glendive ...................................................... 223 3.4 922,103 439.10 2,100 

Havre ........................................................... 248 4.8 922,103 305.53 3,018 

Lewistown ................................................... 125 2.2 922,103 671.60 1,373 

Miles City .................................................... 146 3.8 922,103 389.57 2,367 

Sidney ......................................................... 273 10.1 1,306,313 206.27 6,333 
18 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007—Continued 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/06) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

5/1/2007 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/06) 

West Yellowstone ........................................ 315 12.2 247,122 32.35 7,638 

Wolf Point ................................................... 293 5.6 922,103 261.00 3,533 

NEBRASKA: 

Alliance ....................................................... 256 5.6 655,898 188.15 3,486 

Chadron ...................................................... 311 7.2 655,898 145.30 4,514 

Grand Island ............................................... 140 23.9 1,377,877 92.26 14,934 

Kearney ....................................................... 181 27.3 897,142 52.49 17,093 

McCook ........................................................ 271 7.8 918,585 188.97 4,861 

North Platte ................................................ 277 26.0 976,026 59.97 16,276 

Scottsbluff .................................................. 109 29.0 520,137 28.65 18,155 

NEVADA: Ely ......................................................... 237 ( 2 ) 647,709 ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lebanon .................................. 75 30.7 1,069,606 55.62 19,229 

NEW MEXICO: 

Alamogordo ................................................. 91 ( 3 ) 717,506 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) 

Carlsbad ..................................................... 141 11.4 599,671 84.34 7,110 

Clovis .......................................................... 103 7.5 859,057 183.79 4,674 

Hobbs .......................................................... 90 5.9 519,614 141.05 3,684 

Silver City ................................................... 133 7.4 859,057 184.27 4,662 

NEW YORK: 

Jamestown .................................................. 76 14.4 1,217,414 134.77 9,033 

Massena ...................................................... 143 9.4 699,302 119.21 5,866 

Ogdensburg ................................................. 123 5.3 699,302 211.14 3,312 

Plattsburgh ................................................. 78 6.5 853,378 209.26 4,078 

Saranac Lake .............................................. 126 9.2 853,378 148.72 5,738 

Watertown ................................................... 65 13.0 699,302 85.72 8,158 

NORTH DAKOTA: 

Devils Lake ................................................. 405 10.5 1,329,858 202.66 6,562 

Dickinson .................................................... 319 17.4 1,696,977 156.02 10,877 

Jamestown .................................................. 332 7.6 1,351,677 284.80 4,746 

OREGON: Pendleton ............................................. 195 23.4 748,440 51.10 14,648 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Altoona ........................................................ 108 19.7 893,774 72.62 12,307 

Bradford ...................................................... 77 11.2 1,217,414 174.09 6,993 

Du Bois ....................................................... 112 26.9 599,271 35.62 16,824 

Johnstown ................................................... 82 32.8 464,777 22.62 20,544 

Lancaster .................................................... 66 21.3 1,377,257 103.14 13,353 

Oil City/Franklin .......................................... 86 6.1 741,346 193.41 3,833 

PUERTO RICO: 

Mayaguez .................................................... 105 12.0 688,551 92.02 7,483 

Ponce .......................................................... 77 13.7 622,056 72.62 4 8,566 

SOUTH DAKOTA: 

Brookings .................................................... 206 3.6 1,212,400 543.92 2,229 

Huron .......................................................... 279 5.2 793,733 243.10 3,265 

Watertown ................................................... 207 19.0 1,211,589 102.07 11,870 

TENNESSEE: Jackson ............................................ 85 10.9 906,262 132.75 6,827 

TEXAS: Victoria .................................................... 108 27.7 510,185 29.38 17,367 

UTAH: 

Cedar City ................................................... 178 23.2 897,535 61.93 14,492 

Moab ........................................................... 240 5.7 1,298,784 362.89 3,579 

Vernal .......................................................... 174 6.4 562,720 139.88 4,023 

VERMONT: Rutland .............................................. 118 6.9 849,705 195.92 4,337 

VIRGINIA: Staunton .............................................. 133 17.0 1,389,727 130.81 10,624 

WEST VIRGINIA: 

Beckley ........................................................ 181 7.5 1,930,759 412.12 4,685 

Clarksburg .................................................. .................... 12.0 547,532 72.99 7,501 

Greenbrier/Lewisburg .................................. 172 14.8 685,040 74.09 5 9,246 

Morgantown ................................................ .................... 14.6 547,532 59.72 9,168 

Parkersburg ................................................. .................... 20.2 1,326,850 104.67 12,676 

WYOMING: 

Laramie ....................................................... 144 28.9 487,516 26.99 18,061 
19 

SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2007—Continued 

[Excludes Communities in Alaska] 

States/Communities 

Est. Miles to 

Nearest Hub 

(S,M,or L) 1

Avg. Daily 

Enplnmnts at 

EAS Point (YE 

12/31/06) 

Ann. Sbsdy 

Rates at 

5/1/2007 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Total Psgrs 

(YE 12/31/06) 

Worland ....................................................... 164 8.3 972,757 187.21 5,196 

1 Hub classifications are subject to change annually based on the changes in enplanement levels at the specific hub and at all airports 

Nationwide. 2 Reliable data not available from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

3 Service hiatus. 

4 Cape Air Traffic only. 

5 Air Midwest traffic only. 

COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ¥$50,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥22,000,000 

The Committee recommends a rescission of $22,000,000 from this 

account in fiscal year 2008. This rescission level is the same as the 

budget request and $28,000,000 larger than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. The funds recommended for rescission are in excess 

of the amount determined to be needed for eligible payments to air 

carriers. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to transfer to the account called ‘‘Minority Business Outreach’’ unexpended 

balances from the bonding assistance program funded out of the account ‘‘Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses.’’ 

Section 102 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a modal administration in order to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the regular process for the 

reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification. 

Section 103 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local participation program. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe 

movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system 

of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the 

Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 

1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and maintain aids 

to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve 

such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major 

aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the 

Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to 

a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. 
20 

Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and 

the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal Aviation 

Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The 

Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 

the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist in 1984. 

Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was 

given to the National Transportation Safety Board in 1967. FAA’s 

mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and 

decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2008 amounts to $14,940,420,000, which is $246,969,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The current budget structure for the FAA includes distinct accounts to pay for the operations of the agency (Operations), and the 

agency’s capital expenditures (Facilities and Equipment). The FAA 

budget justification for fiscal year 2008 propose to restructure these 

two accounts along the lines of business of the agency. Under this 

proposal, one account would pay for the Air Traffic Organization, 

including both the operating and capital expenses of the organization. Another account, Safety and Operations, would pay for both 

the operating and capital expenses of the Aviation Safety office and 

other offices within the FAA. This new budget structure is consistent with the reauthorization proposal submitted by the President in February of this year. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has reported legislation that 

would authorize FAA programs through fiscal year 2011, and the 

Commerce Committee bill continues to authorize FAA programs 

under the existing account structure. As such, the Committee has 

also followed the current account structure for its appropriations 

recommendations for 2008. All of the information presented below, 

including the display of President’s budget estimates for fiscal year 

2008, follows the existing structure. 

In addition to changes to the FAA budget structure, the reauthorization proposal submitted by the President this year would 

make significant changes to the financing of FAA programs. The 

proposal would replace the current system of aviation taxes with 

a new user fee system, and it would provide the FAA with the authority to borrow up to $5,000,000,000 from the Treasury. Such 

borrowing would be repaid by an automatic increase to one of the 

newly-proposed user fees. Such borrowing authority would represent a considerable departure from the current financing of almost all FAA spending through direct appropriations. 

The Appropriations Committee has played a central role in ensuring that the FAA has the resources it needs to conduct its missions. The Committee has also sought to protect the investment of 

taxpayer dollars in the FAA by making sure that the agency 
21 

spends its resources efficiently. Not only has the Committee cut 

wasteful spending on ineffective programs, it has also provided additional resources for critically important activities that the agency 

or the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] had overlooked in 

its budget requests. As such, the Committee believes that any degradation in the Committee’s ability to annually set programmatic 

spending levels and oversee the agency’s spending habits as part 

of the reauthorization process should be strenuously resisted. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for fiscal year 2008 excluding rescissions: 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Operations: 

General fund appropriation ............................................ $2,746,317,000 $2,601,372,000 $2,361,203,000 

Trust fund appropriation ................................................ 5,627,900,000 6,124,411,000 6,400,580,000 

Facilities and equipment ......................................................... 2,516,920,000 2,461,566,000 2,516,920,000 

Research, engineering, and development: 

General fund appropriation ............................................ 130,234,000 122,867,000 148,800,000 

Trust fund appropriation ................................................ .............................. 17,133,000 ..............................

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................ 3,514,500,000 2,750,000,000 3,514,500,000 

Total ............................................................................ 14,535,871,000 14,077,349,000 14,940,420,000 

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $8,374,217,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 8,725,783,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,761,783,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, commercial space, medical, engineering and development programs, as well 

as policy oversight and agency management functions. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) the 

air traffic organization which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, 

the national air traffic system, including the establishment and 

maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation, the development and distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) the 

regulation and certification activities including establishment and 

surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety and development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an aviation medical 

research program; (3) the office of commercial space transportation; 

and (4) headquarters, administration and other staff and support 

offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $8,761,783,000 for FAA 

operations. This funding level is $43,209,783 more than the budget 

request, and $387,566,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level. The Committee recommendation derives $6,400,580,000 of 
22 

the appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The trust 

fund level is equal to the budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. 

As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic 

control system. 

The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior years 

relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and cartography, 

and Government-issued credit cards. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2007 enacted level: 

FAA OPERATIONS 

Fiscal year Committee 2007 recommendations enacted 

2008 

estimate 

Air Traffic Organization ........................................................... $6,739,761,000 $6,964,813,000 $6,964,813,000

Aviation Safety ......................................................................... 1,003,410,000 1,056,103,364 1,092,103,000 

Commercial Space Transportation ........................................... 11,696,000 12,837,437 12,837,437 

Financial Services .................................................................... 76,289,000 103,848,661 103,848,661 

Human Resource Management ................................................ 85,738,000 91,214,239 91,214,239 

Region and Center Operations ................................................ 275,797,000 290,872,359 290,872,359 

Staff Offices ............................................................................. 145,524,000 166,541,633 166,541,633 

Information Services ................................................................ 36,002,000 39,552,285 39,552,285 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 8,374,217,000 8,725,783,000 8,761,783,000 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The Committee recommends $6,964,813,000 for the Air Traffic 

Organization to operate and maintain the national air traffic control system. The recommended level is equal to the budget estimate, and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee is confident that the recommended funding level is sufficient 

to continue safe and efficient management of the National Airspace 

System [NAS]. 

Air Traffic Controller Contract.—Last year, after failing to reach 

an agreement on a new contract through the collective bargaining 

process, the Administrator used questionable statutory authority to 

impose a new pay structure and work rules on the air traffic controller workforce. Several issues regarding the imposition of these 

terms are unresolved and tension between the controllers and FAA 

management remains at its worst point since the PATCO strike. 

The Committee believes that the current tenor of labor-management relations at the agency is not at all in the best interest of the 

FAA safety mission and the ability of the agency to tackle its most 

vexing challenges. As such, the Committee expects the Administrator to work aggressively to resolve the conflict over the controller’s contract immediately. 

Air Traffic Controller Staffing.—The bill includes a provision 

that requires the FAA to submit to Congress its annual air traffic 

controller workforce plan by March 31 of each year. The original 

controller workforce plan was submitted to Congress in December 

2004. Although the agency promised that the plan would be up-
23 

dated annually, the Committee had to wait until June 2006 before 

receiving any update to that plan. Since that time, the Committee 

has not received the 2007 update. The Committee directs the FAA 

to submit its 2007 plan immediately. The Committee also directs 

the FAA to include in each update to the controller workforce plan 

annual information on the total number of air traffic controllers 

that the agency projects for its workforce in addition to providing 

the estimated losses and planned hires to the controller workforce. 

Under the terms of the provision in the bill, the agency’s budget 

will be effectively fined for each day after March 31 that the report 

is not submitted. 

The Committee believes that a fully staffed controller workforce 

is critical to maintaining the safety of the air transportation system. However, the Committee is concerned that the FAA will not 

be able to reach its staffing goals for the current fiscal year, placing 

the goals for fiscal year 2008 in further jeopardy. As illustrated by 

the table below, the FAA expected to lose 1,197 air traffic controllers this year, and it hopes to hire 1,386 controllers in order fill 

those vacancies and increase its total staff level to 14,807. However, a little over halfway through fiscal year 2007, the FAA had 

already lost 900 controllers, or 75 percent of the total number of 

controller losses that the agency had projected for the entire year. 

The FAA also underestimated the number of controller losses to 

the workforce for both fiscal years 2005 and 2006. If controller 

losses continue to occur at this rate, the FAA will have to hire a 

total of 1,732 controllers this year in order to meet its workforce 

goal. That hiring total is 346 more controllers than the FAA had 

planned to hire before the end of the fiscal year. While the agency 

insists that it can still meet its end-of-year on-board strength goal 

for this year, the Committee will continue to monitor this situation 

carefully. The safety of our skies makes it essential that the FAA’s 

hard hiring targets be viewed as a mandate on the agency, not as 

some amorphous goal that can slip from year to year. 

Alien Species Action Plan [ASAP].—The Committee recommends 

$1,600,000 to continue the implementation of the Alien Species Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA as part of its August 26, 
24 

1998, record of decision approving certain improvements at 

Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds will be used 

to execute capital projects and continue the operational requirements imposed by the ASAP. Requested by Senator Inouye. 

AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee recommends $1,092,103,000 for aviation safety. 

The recommendation is $35,999,636, more than the budget request, 

and $88,693,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Staffing levels for the Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification 

Offices.—The Committee has again increased funding for aviation 

safety in order to boost critical safety staff in the Office of Aviation 

Flight Standards [AFS] and the Office of Aircraft Certification 

[AIR]. The bill continues to prohibit the FAA from reprogramming 

or transferring these funds to any other activity. The Committee 

expects the FAA to hire 364 additional safety staff with this increase in funding. With this additional funding and the increase in 

safety staff, the FAA will be able to raise the total number of safety 

staff on board in fiscal year 2008 from 6,912 to 7,276. The Committee directs the FAA to report to the Committee on a quarterly 

basis on the agency’s progress toward accomplishing the goal of retaining 7,276 safety inspectors in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee is gravely concerned that the FAA has not maintained the level of staffing in its flight standards and aircraft certification offices necessary to meet the demands of overseeing the 

safety of today’s aviation industry. As with the staffing goals for air 

traffic controllers, if the FAA is unable to achieve its stated goals 

for the current fiscal year, then the agency also places its staffing 

goals for fiscal year 2008 in jeopardy. As detailed in the table 

below, the FAA expected to lose 467 flight standards and aircraft 

certification staff this year, and it hopes to hire 576 staff members 

in order to fill those vacancies and increase its total staff level to 

6,671. Now, 8 months through fiscal year 2007, the FAA has lost 

371 members of its safety staff, representing about 80 percent of 

the total number of staff members that the agency had estimated 

to lose over the entire year. In contrast, the FAA has hired only 

179 new safety inspectors, representing just 31 percent of the total 

number of new hires the agency had planned to bring on board this 

year. 

If inspector losses continue to occur at the current rate, the FAA 

will have to hire 487 new safety inspectors during the last 4 

months of the fiscal year, a hiring target which is more than twice 

the number of inspectors the agency has been able to hire for the 

first 8 months of the year. As with the agency’s controller goals, 

the FAA insists that it will meet the 2007 inspector goal. The Committee will continue to monitor the situation and encourages the 

FAA to manage its hiring in a more stable manner so that these 

end-of-year surges in hiring are not necessary. 
25 

For 3 out of the past 6 years, the Committee has provided more 

funding than the FAA has requested to pay the salaries and boost 

the number of essential safety staff working in the flight standards 

and aircraft certification offices. The Committee has invested these 

resources because it believes that the work of these offices is critical to maintaining a safe air transportation system. For fiscal year 

2008, this Committee is again adding more funds. Some 

$16,000,000 of this funding will be needed simply to retain the additional personnel for which the Committee added funding for the 

current fiscal year. However, an additional $20,000,000 is also provided to boost inspecter staffing to address the agency’s most critical safety vulnerabilities. In testimony presented on June 20 to the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety explained that 

the additional resources provided by the Committee have been essential to her office’s efforts to meet all of its mission requirements. 

The Committee commends the candor of the Deputy Associate Administrator and hopes that the FAA, in future budget requests, will 

seek sufficient resources to adequately staff the flight standards 

and aircraft certification offices. 

Aviation Safety Workforce Plan.—The bill includes a provision 

that requires the FAA to submit to Congress annual updates to its 

safety staff workforce plan by March 31 of each year. As in the case 

of the requirement for the controller workforce plan, the agency’s 

budget will be effectively fined for each day after March 31 that the 

report is not submitted. The Committee directs the FAA to include 

in these updates annual information on the total number of staff 

that the agency projects will work in its safety offices, the estimated losses to its safety workforce, and the number of safety inspectors the agency plans to hire in each year. The Committee further directs that the FAA publish this information for its safety 

staff in its entirety, as well as individually for the flight standards 

office and the aircraft certification office. 

The Committee continues to be frustrated by the failure of the 

FAA to provide timely information on its hiring practices for the 

safety offices. Last year, the Committee expressed its disappointment that the FAA had not yet followed directions published in the 
26 

statement of managers of the 2006 act that instructed the FAA to 

provide semi-annual reports on its safety staff. This year, the FAA 

failed to respond to directions that the agency submit a workforce 

plan for its flight standards and aircraft certification staff by 

March 1. The FAA finally submitted such a plan in May, 2 months 

late, and only after the Administrator was questioned on her safety 

staffing levels at a hearing before the Committee. 

Safety Oversight in a Changing Industry.—Air carriers continue 

to increase the amount of repair work that they outsource to other 

firms. In the decade from 1996 to 2006, the share of total carrier 

maintenance expenditures that was outsourced grew from 37 percent to 64 percent. The following chart illustrates this growth (data 

provided by the Office of the Inspector General): 

Outsourced maintenance work has come to include the repair of 

critical components such as landing gear and engine overhauls, as 

well as heavy airframe maintenance checks, which involve the complete teardown and overhaul of an aircraft. Furthermore, more of 

this outsourced work is being completed overseas where the FAA 

cannot maintain the same level of oversight that the agency can 

bring to bear within the United States. 

In separate testimony before the Committee and before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the 

DOT Inspector General raised serious concerns over the ability of 

the FAA to oversee airline maintenance and guarantee its quality. 

Specifically, the Inspector General noted that the FAA does not 

know all the locations where air carriers are having maintenance 

work conducted. He noted further that the FAA does not conduct 

the same level of oversight over outsourced maintenance that the 

agency conducts over maintenance work performed by air carriers 

in-house. Finally, the Inspector General noted that the FAA does 

not have an adequate system for placing its safety inspectors where 

they are actually needed around the globe. 

Perhaps most damning was the following observation of the Inspector General in which he maintained that carriers have been de-
27 

liberately directing maintenance activities to certain overseas facilities precisely because of the absence of sufficient FAA oversight: 

‘‘We identified over 1,400 non-certified repair facilities performing 

maintenance, and more than 100 of these facilities were located in 

foreign countries, such as Aruba, Belize, Bermuda, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Mexico. It is important 

to note that in many instances, air carriers contracted with facilities in these locations to ensure that they had a maintenance 

source in locations where there were no FAA-certificated repair stations available.’’ 

The FAA has tried to allay these concerns by pointing out that 

the agency must still certify the air carriers themselves, including 

certification that the air carrier has its own system for overseeing 

outsourced maintenance work. The concerns of the Committee, 

however, are not allayed when it hears the Inspector General testify that air carriers often rely on telephone contact to monitor the 

work conducted at non-certified repair stations. These same carriers often assign on-site representatives to oversee the work performed at repair stations that are certified. 

The Committee is aware that the FAA has begun to develop a 

more sophisticated model that will allow the agency to place its 

safety inspectors at locations where they will perform most effectively. This effort follows on the heels of a study by the National 

Research Council that showed that the FAA uses an antiquated 

method of locating its safety inspectors. Although the Committee 

understands that the model will be complex, the Committee encourages the FAA to build the model expeditiously. The Committee 

also directs the FAA to submit within 90 days a report to the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees that delineates its 

schedule for completing the model and fully utilizing it. The report 

will specify milestones with deadline dates for the development and 

completion of the model including the dates when the model can be 

expected to be fully utilized to dictate the location of all inspector 

resources. 

Medallion Program.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to 

continue the medallion five star shield program, a key safety initiative in the FAA’s current strategic plan for reducing general aviation accidents in Alaska. Requested by Senator Stevens. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $2,516,920,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,462,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,516,920,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides 

funding for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other 

improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the national 

airspace system [NAS]. The program aims to keep pace with the 
28 

increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration’s comprehensive 5- 

year capital investment plan [CIP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,516,920,000 

for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is $54,920,000 more than 

the budget estimate and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The bill provides that $2,056,947,000 shall be available for obligation until September 30, 2010, and $459,973,000 shall be available 

until September 30, 2008. 

Rebaselining; Accountability and Transparency in FAA Procurements.— 

‘‘It stings when I listen to criticisms about the FAA that are 

based on something that happened 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. 

In the last few years, we have achieved enormous management 

efficiencies, and at the end of fiscal year 2006, 97 percent of 

our major capital projects were on time and on budget.’’ 

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, 

Hartford, Connecticut, 

April 5, 2007 

‘‘As we speak... 100 percent of our major capital programs are on schedule and on budget’’ 

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, 

Testimony before the Committee, 

May 10, 2007 

‘‘This rebaselining process explains why the Wide Area Augmentation System, according to the FAA’s logic, is still on 

budget, even through its costs have grown from $892,000,000 

to over $3,000,000,000 since 1998’’ 

DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel, 

Testimony before the Committee, 

May 10, 2007 

‘‘A simple statement that it is on time and on budget doesn’t 

capture that evolution, and certainly, the taxpayer and the 

Congress will be interested in that entire story, rather than 

just the sound bite.’’ 

DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel, 

Testimony before the Committee, 

May 10, 2007 

Much attention has been focused on the need for the FAA to replace its current air traffic control infrastructure with a ‘‘next generation’’ [NextGen] system that employs the most modern satellitebased technologies to allow the agency to get maximum use of the 

available airspace to accommodate the expected growth in air travel. The Committee is supportive of the agency’s migration to 

NextGen technologies and has, on a number of occasions, funded 

such technologies without the benefit of a budget request from the 

FAA. However, if the FAA is going to successfully deploy NextGen 

in a fiscally prudent and timely manner, it will be essential that 

the agency continue to make significant strides in improving its 

procurement processes. 
29 

As made clear by the statements cited above, the FAA Administrator believes that her agency has ‘‘achieved enormous management efficiencies’’ that give rise to a near-perfect procurement 

record for timely, cost-controlled acquisitions. While the Committee 

certainly agrees that management improvements have been made 

at the FAA, the Committee is not convinced that such improvements should be characterized as ‘‘enormous.’’ The Committee certainly questions the Administrator’s representations that the agency is enjoying a near-perfect record in purchasing critical new systems in a timely and cost-controlled manner. 

During oversight hearings held in May of this year, the Committee pursued in detail the process through which the FAA ‘‘rebaselines’’ the estimated cost and schedule for major procurements. 

‘‘Rebaselining’’ is a process through which the FAA completes a 

thorough examination of a capital program, reconsiders if the program justifies its costs, and makes adjustments to the schedule and 

budget of the program. The FAA begins a rebaselining process if 

a capital program appears in danger of missing its schedule or exceeding its budget by 10 percent or more. The Committee does not 

question the wisdom of rebaselining major capital projects that are 

behind schedule and over cost. Indeed, given the FAA’s long troubled history with major procurements, the Committee commends 

both the Office of the Secretary and the President’s Office of Management and Budget [OMB] for insisting that the FAA rebaseline 

procurements when appropriate. What the Committee questions in 

the strongest possible terms is the agency’s practice of using the rebaselining process to ‘‘wipe the slate clean’’—using the process to 

ignore skyrocketing costs or dramatic delays that may just be a few 

months old—all so that the agency can claim ‘‘enormous management efficiencies’’ and a near-perfect procurement record. 

The numbers speak for themselves. Of the 37 major procurements that the FAA evaluates in claiming its near-perfect procurement record, more than 25 percent of them have had their schedules and budget revised by the agency since the initial project contracts were signed. These projects include: Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X; Airport Surveillance Radar 11; Aviation 

Surface Weather Observation System; FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure; Free Flight Phase II; Integrated Terminal Weather 

System; NAS Infrastructure Management System; Next Generation 

Air/Ground Communications; Standard Terminal Automation and 

Replacement; and Wide Area Augmentation System. 

The graphs displayed below illustrate separately the expansion of 

schedule and cost for these 10 programs—programs that the Administrator now claims are on-time and on-budget. Lest it be asserted that these figures misrepresent the FAA’s more recent 

record in managing and controlling these programs, each graph 

below provides the cost- and schedule-growth figures in two ways. 

One bar details the level of schedule or cost growth since each program’s inception. The other bar details the level of such growth just 

since 2001. 
30 

Through the rebaselining process, just since 2001, the FAA has 

added 296 months, or over 25 percent, to the original schedules for 

these programs. The FAA has added almost $1,700,000,000, or 26 

percent, to the total cost of those programs over the same timeframe. When you look to the agency’s record going back to the inception of each of these programs, the FAA has added almost 400 

months to their schedules, an increase of about 46 percent. Over 

the same timeframe, the FAA also has added more than 
31 

$5,000,000,000 to their costs. That represents cost growth of 109 

percent. 

The Committee reemphasizes its view that rebaselining is an important tool for the FAA to monitor the performance of its major 

procurements. It should help prevent some of the multi-billion dollar debacles of the distant past in which the agency took far too 

long to recognize the true risk involved in procurements that, in 

the end, produced little or no benefit for the taxpayer. That said, 

the Committee has no intention of ignoring FAA cost and schedule 

estimates that may be just a few years or a few months old in evaluating the agency’s procurement performance. The Committee believes that the key to the FAA improving that performance is continued oversight and aggressive program management that holds 

vendors and project managers to clearly defined goals and responsibilities. The key does not lie in a rebaselining process that allows 

the agency to annually ‘‘lower the bar’’ for itself. 

Definition of Program Success.—In testimony before the Committee, the DOT Inspector General pointed out that the agency is 

periodically reporting that certain acquisitions have reached a successful completion simply when a procured piece of equipment has 

been delivered to its assigned site. This practice is in contrast to 

reporting success only when the device is fully installed, operational, and providing its intended benefits to the flying public. To 

the Administrator’s credit, the IG’s testimony would indicate that 

this misquided reporting practice is now more the exception than 

the rule. This practice is reminiscent of testimony taken by the 

Committee in 2006 in which it was revealed that certain FAA managers were granted bonuses based on the rate at which new telecommunications links were being installed rather than based on 

the rate at which the replaced telecommunications lines were being 

disconnected—the point at which the taxpayer actually began to 

enjoy savings. The Committee agrees with the Inspector General 

that a new expensive piece of navigational equipment is of no use 

to the public while it is still sitting in a crate. As such, the Committee expects the Administrator to present budgets that are balanced between procurement, installation and training costs so that 

recently-procured equipment can be deployed rapidly and utilized 

completely by fully trained agency personnel. The Committee also 

asks the Administrator to continue to make rapid progress in reporting program success based only on the full utilization of procured equipment, not simply on the delivery of that equipment to 

its intended site. 

Budget Activities Format.—The Committee directs that the fiscal 

year 2009 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account 

conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as 

displayed below. 

The Committee’s recommended distribution of funds for each of 

the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows: 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

2007 actual 2008 estimate Committee recommendation 

Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Testing and Evaluation: 

Advanced Technology Development and Prototype ........................... $39,067,000 $37,800,000 $39,800,000 
32 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

2007 actual 2008 estimate Committee recommendation 

Safe Flight 21 ................................................................................... 12,900,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications ...................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 ........................

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications 

System (NEXCOM) ......................................................................... 25,000,000 30,400,000 30,400,000 

Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) .................................................. 37,600,000 15,400,000 15,400,000 

Louisville International Airport Demonstration Projects ................... ........................ ........................ 2,000,000 

NAS Improvements of System Support Laboratory ........................... 1,198,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Technical Center Facilities ............................................................... 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 

Technical Center Building and Plant Support ................................. 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 

System-Wide Information Management ............................................ 24,000,000 21,300,000 24,300,000 

ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation ..................................................... 80,000,000 85,650,000 97,354,000 

NextGen Network Enabled Weather ................................................... ........................ 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations (NextGen) .............................................................................................. ........................ 7,400,000 7,400,000 

Next Generations Transportation System Technology Demonstration ............................................................................................... ........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000 

Next Generation Integrated Airport ................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000,000 

Total, Activity 1 ............................................................................ 236,965,000 290,150,000 310,854,000 

Activity 2, Procurement and Modernization of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

En Route Programs: 

En Route Automation Program (ERAM) ................................... 376,553,000 368,750,000 368,750,000 

En Route Communications Gateway (ECG) ............................. 4,200,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

En Route System Modification ................................................. 27,500,000 4,300,000 4,300,000 

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) .............................. 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) .................................... 7,400,000 ........................ ........................

ARTCC Building Improvement/Plant Improvement .................. 51,000,000 52,900,000 52,900,000 

Air Traffic Management (ATM) ................................................ 78,850,000 90,600,000 90,600,000 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ............................. 18,788,000 29,200,000 26,200,000 

ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)—Replacement .................... 16,400,000 20,200,000 20,200,000 

Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities—Improve ........ 5,000,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 

En Route Communications and Control Fac—Improve .......... 1,883,769 ........................ ........................

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) .......................... 16,900,000 15,700,000 15,700,000 

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) ........................... 20,900,000 13,200,000 13,200,000 

Wind Hazard Detection Equipment .......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,100,000 

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure .................................. 31,175,171 8,500,000 8,500,000 

Oceanic Automation System .................................................... 31,350,000 53,100,000 53,100,000 

ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network ..................................... 6,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 

Corridor Weather Integrated System (CWIS) ............................ ........................ 2,100,000 2,100,000 

San Juan Radar Approach Control .......................................... ........................ 8,000,000 8,000,000 

MilOps ...................................................................................... ........................ 1,600,000 1,600,000 

Automated Detection and Processing Terminal (ADAPT) ........ ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

ATCSCC Infrastructure Planning .............................................. ........................ 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Volcano Monitoring .................................................................. ........................ 1,000,000 3,000,000

Terminal Programs: 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE—X) ................... 70,600,000 37,900,000 37,900,000 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)—Provide ............... 12,500,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization Phase 1 .......................... 49,200,000 31,200,000 31,200,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program 

(TAMR Phase 2) ................................................................... 30,450,000 6,800,000 6,800,000 

Terminal Automation Modernization Program ......................... 13,800,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace .................... 124,000,000 150,600,000 166,700,000 

ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Facilities—Improve ...................................................................... 48,833,563 47,000,000 47,000,000 

Terminal Voice Switch Replace/Enhance Terminal Voice ........ 11,300,000 12,300,000 12,300,000 

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance ..................................................................................... 25,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR–9) ........................................ 15,900,000 6,300,000 11,300,000 

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11) ............................................ 44,050,000 20,300,000 20,300,000 

Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance ................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000,000 

Radar Relocation ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500,000 
33 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

2007 actual 2008 estimate Committee recommendation 

DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer ..................................................... 2,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 

Precision Runway Monitors ...................................................... 2,600,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Terminal Radar (ASR)—Improve ............................................. 2,022,848 ........................ ........................

Terminal Communications—Improve ...................................... 1,348,887 ........................ ........................

Runway Status Lights .............................................................. 5,713,854 5,300,000 5,300,000 

National Airspace System Voice Switch (NVS) ........................ 500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Weather System Processor ....................................................... 1,000,000 4,100,000 4,100,000 

Voice Recorder Replacement Program ..................................... ........................ 5,900,000 10,500,000 

Houston Area Air Traffic System (HAATS) ............................... ........................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 

NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) ..................... 5,000,000 ........................ ........................

Flight Service Programs: 

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ........................ 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System 

(OASIS) ................................................................................. 8,300,000 ........................ ........................

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ............................. 6,152,002 5,100,000 5,100,000 

Landing and Navigational Aids Program: 

VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) with Distance 

Measuring Equipment (DME) .............................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establish/Upgrade ............. 6,005,000 9,000,000 14,950,000 

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ................................ 122,400,000 115,900,000 115,900,000 

Runway Visual Range .............................................................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—Improve ................................. 4,270,933 ........................ ........................

Approach Lighting System Improvement Pgm (ALSIP) ............ 15,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000 

Distance Measuring Equipment—Sustain .............................. 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Visual Navaids—Establish/Expand ......................................... 2,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 

Instrument Approach Procedures Automation (IAPA) .............. 9,300,000 17,800,000 17,800,000 

Navigation and Landing Aids—SLEP ...................................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

VASI Replacement-Replace with Precision Approach Path Indicator ................................................................................. 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Other ATC Facilities Programs: 

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring .................... 5,800,000 5,900,000 5,900,000 

FAA Buildings and Equipment ................................................. 13,257,933 13,700,000 13,700,000 

Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) ...... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 

Aircraft and Related Equipment Program ............................... 11,000,000 9,800,000 9,800,000 

Computer Aided Engineering and Graphics (CAEG) Modernization ............................................................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Airport Cable Loop System—Sustained Support .................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Alaska NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS) ..... 2,240,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Facilities Decommissioning ..................................................... 500,000 8,000,000 5,400,000 

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support ........................... 43,593,040 41,000,000 38,000,000 

Flight Standards Aircraft ......................................................... ........................ 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Energy Management and Efficiency Compliance .................... ........................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 

Total, Activity 2 ................................................................... 1,449,338,000 1,364,950,000 1,396,600,000 

Activity 3, Procurement Modernization of Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment: 

Support Programs: 

Hazardous Materials Management .......................................... 20,000,000 18,200,000 18,200,000 

Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) .................................. 14,500,000 16,900,000 16,900,000 

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) .................... 1,000,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 

Test Equipment—Maint Support for Replacement ................. 1,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 

NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) .................................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Facility Security Risk Management ......................................... 25,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 

Information Security ................................................................. 19,800,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 

System Approach for Safety Oversight (SASO) ........................ 17,300,000 11,300,000 11,300,000 

Center for Aviation Safety Research ....................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000,000 

Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment 

(ASKME) ............................................................................... 4,600,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Training, Equipment and Facilities: 

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ................... 13,800,000 5,393,000 5,393,000 

National Airspace System Training Facilities .......................... 14,000,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 

Distance Learning .................................................................... 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 
34 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued 

2007 actual 2008 estimate Committee recommendation 

National Airspace System (NAS) Training—Simulator ........... ........................ 14,600,000 14,600,000 

Total, Activity 3 ................................................................... 143,000,000 129,493,000 132,493,000 

Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support: 

System Engineering and Development Support ............................... 30,700,000 30,200,000 30,200,000 

Program Support Leases ................................................................... 45,000,000 44,000,000 40,000,000 

Logistics Support Services (LSS) ...................................................... 7,900,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center—Leases .................................. 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 

Transition Engineering Support ........................................................ 27,980,000 10,700,000 10,700,000 

Frequency and Spectrum Engineering .............................................. 4,500,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 

Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) .................................... 35,220,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 

Resource Tracking Program .............................................................. 1,700,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ........................ 81,000,000 74,200,000 78,200,000 

NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information Programs ............................ 4,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Permanent Change of Station Moves ............................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Total, Activity 4 ............................................................................ 251,500,000 217,000,000 217,000,000 

Activity 5, Personnel Compensation, Benefits, and Travel: Personnel 

and Related Expenses ........................................................................... 436,117,000 459,973,000 459,973,000 

Total, All Activities ....................................................................... 2,516,920,000 2,461,566,000 2,516,920,000 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION

Runway Obstruction Warning System.—The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the ATDP budget line to 

continue development, enhancement, and evaluation of the Runway 

Obstruction Warning System at the test bed at Gulfport-Biloxi Airport. Requested by Senator Cochran. 

Safe Flight 21.—The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for 

Safe Flight 21. These funds are critical to increasing flight safety 

and reducing the number of fatal accidents in Alaska and other 

areas. This program has proved to be invaluable in regards to testing and developing new technologies that benefit the entire National Airspace System, especially in regards to ADS–B and other 

NextGen initiatives. Requested by Senator Stevens. 

Aeronautical Data Link [ADL] Applications.—The Committee has 

not provided funding for Aeronautical Data Link applications 

through the Facilities and Equipment account as it appears that 

these expenditures are more operational in nature. Adequate funding has been provided in the Operations account to cover these 

costs. 

Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications 

[NEXCOM].—The Committee has provided $30,400,000 for the 

Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System 

[NEXCOM]. Under NEXCOM, the FAA is modernizing its air-toground communications equipment. While providing the full 

amount requested, the Committee remains disappointed with the 

program’s slow rate of progress. The delays with the FTI program 

discussed above have had a negative impact on the development of 

this program, which is essential to any next generation air transportation system. At the end of 2005, the FAA rebaselined 

NEXCOM and delayed the full implementation of the program by 
35 

2 years. This delay was due largely to the fact that the FAA had 

to reallocate too much of its NEXCOM workforce to reforming the 

FTI program. As it builds the next generation system of air transportation, the FAA increasingly will be responsible for managing a 

larger portfolio of sophisticated capital programs. The Committee 

expects the FAA to manage each of these programs more responsibly than it has to date so that the deployment of the next generation system does not fall further behind. 

Louisville International Airport Demonstration Projects.—The 

Committee recommends $2,000,000 for demonstration projects at 

Louisville International Airport. These funds will be used for vital 

technology demonstrations, such as Surface Management System 

and Aircraft Surface Moving Map Display capabilities. These technology demonstrations will assist in the transition to the next step 

of ADS–B implementation, enabling continuous descent approaches 

during nighttime arrivals. Requested by Senator McConnell. 

System-Wide Information Management/Mobile Objects Technology.—The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the SystemWide Information Management [SWIM] program. The funding level 

is $3,000,000 more than the budget request, and $300,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The FAA has identified the 

SWIM program as the foundation for building the next generation 

air transportation system. Under SWIM, the FAA is developing a 

networked architecture that will enable all users of the national 

airspace to share information efficiently. 

The value of SWIM lies in its overall architecture rather than in 

its connectivity to any individual system. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the FAA to submit a report within 90 days of enactment 

that provides detailed information on how much of the SWIM budget has and will remain within the program office for the development of its core architecture versus the amount of funding that has 

and will be distributed to other program offices to establish individual connectivity. This report should also include an explanation 

of how the FAA will ensure connectivity between SWIM and all of 

the other systems or programs that need to be connected to it. The 

Committee requests the FAA to provide greater detail in its fiscal 

year 2009 budget justification as to how much of the request for 

the SWIM budget would be utilized by other program offices. Within the amount provided for this program, the Committee directs 

that the $3,000,000 provided above the budget request be used for 

an evaluation and a demonstration of the capability of integrating 

mobile objects technology with the ongoing SWIM program. Requested by Senators Murray and Cantwell. 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast NAS Wide Implementation.—The Committee is again providing more funding than 

the level requested for the Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast [ADS–B] program. The funding level provided, 

$97,354,000, is $11,704,000 more than the budget request and 

$17,354,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level. The FAA his identified ADS–B as a ‘‘transformational’’ program for developing the next generation air transportation system. 

Under the ADS–B program, the FAA is developing satellite-based 

technology that will allow aircraft to broadcast their precise loca-
36 

tion, identification, and flight plan information to ground facilities 

as well as to other aircraft. 

The Committee is pleased to see that the FAA recognizes the 

central role that ADS–B technology will play in the development of 

the next generation air transportation system. However, the Committee remains concerned that the FAA maintains a short-sighted 

view of the program by focusing its resources on developing 

ground-to-air capabilities without laying an adequate foundation 

for implementing air-to-air capabilities. While the ground-to-air 

technology will improve the safety and efficiency of the national 

airspace, the ‘‘transformational’’ power of the ADS–B technology 

will not be fully realized until the air-to-air technology is implemented. 

The Committee therefore directs the FAA to use the additional 

$11,704,000 provided for this program to expedite the development 

of air-to-air capabilities and bring those capabilities into service. 

The Committee does not recommend providing this additional 

$11,704,000 in order to increase the total cost of the program, but 

rather to bring the air-to-air capabilities to service more expeditiously. 

The Committee was pleased with the Administrator’s testimony 

in which she reiterated her intention to require the installation of 

ADS–B technology across the universe of NAS users. The Committee was initially perplexed by reports that, in seeking vendors 

for the ADS–B technology, the FAA asked competitors to supply information on how their proposed solution would incentivize and encourage NAS users to equip with ADS–B. This technology will only 

reach its full potential for safety and efficiency if all users are required to participate. The sooner that participation is required, the 

sooner the system will achieve the promised safety and efficiency 

benefits. The Committee looks forward to reviewing the Administrator’s proposed rule that will stipulate the agency’s proposed installation timetable. That proposed rule, the Administrator testified, will be published in the fall of 2007. 

NextGen Integrated Airport.—The Committee recommends 

$3,000,000 for the NextGen Integrated Airport project, to be located at Daytona Beach International Airport. This project is intended to provide for a national testing site for the technologies to 

be tested and deployed as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System [NGATS]. The project is currently sponsored by 

both Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and some but not all 

of the potential vendors that might be expected to participate in 

NGATS. With the contribution of taxpayer funds toward this initiative, the Committee expects the FAA to ensure that measures are 

in place to guarantee that all potential vendors have the opportunity to benefit fully from this facility. Requested by Senator Bill 

Nelson. 

PROCUREMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En Route Automation Modernization.—The Committee recommends $368,750,000 for the En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] program. The funding level is equal to the budget request, and $7,803,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 
37 

According to the capital investment plan of the FAA, fiscal year 

2008 will be the peak year of funding for this program. The Committee expects to see lower budget requests for ERAM in future 

years. 

Under the ERAM program, the FAA is replacing the computer 

network for the air traffic control facilities that manage high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this network is critical to allowing FAA 

to continue managing air traffic effectively. It is also an essential 

component of moving the FAA into the next generation of air traffic 

control. The Committee commends the FAA for, thus far, succeeding in managing this large and complicated program within its 

budget and schedule. A large part of the success of this program 

is due to the willingness of the FAA to follow sound management 

practices such as delineating all of the program requirements before signing a contract with an outside vendor. The FAA has not 

used these management practices as frequently or effectively on 

other agency procurements. 

The Committee understands that the most complicated work 

under the ERAM program must be completed over the next couple 

of years. Because ERAM is expected to serve as a foundation for 

many other next generation automation programs, any increase in 

the cost of ERAM or slip in its schedule could have a direct impact 

on the overall pace of developing the next generation system. The 

Committee urges the FAA to continue following sound management 

practices in order to ensure the success of this important program. 

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.—The Committee 

recommends $26,200,000 for Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure. The amount provided is $3,000,000 less than the budget 

request. The Committee expects the FAA to accommodate this 

funding level by slowing slightly the Communications Facilities Expansion [CFE] program. The FAA anticipates that its most critical 

communications projects can be accomplished within the 

$6,000,000 provided for CFE for fiscal year 2008. 

Wind Hazard Detection Equipment, Nevada.—The Committee 

recommends $1,100,000 for the purchase of Wind Tracer Wind 

Hazard Detection equipment, the transportation of this equipment 

from Colorado to Nevada, the installation of the equipment at 

McCarran International Airport, and the training of FAA staff on 

the equipment’s use and maintenance. Wind Tracer is laser-driven 

equipment that measures winds, wind hazards, and turbulence in 

airport terminal areas in dry and clear air. The equipment allows 

detection and alerting of events such as dry micro-bursts, wind 

shears, and gust fronts. Requested by Senator Reid. 

Stand Alone Weather Sensors.—The Committee notes that the 

budget does not request funding for the Stand Alone Weather Sensors program. The Committee is concerned that significant taxpayer funds have been spent on this program only to have the FAA 

warehouse important weather monitoring stations for class C airports nationwide. The Committee directs the FAA Administrator to 

submit a report by March 15, 2008, to the Committee detailing the 

number of SAWS systems purchased and deployed, improvements 

in flight safety at deployed airports, safety impacts at class C airports yet to receive SAWS systems, accounting of current class C 

airports, and the FAA’s plan to proceed with the original intent of 
38 

SAWS deployment at all class C airports. Requested by Senator 

Murray. 

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure [FTI] program. The funding level is equal to the budget request, and $22,675,171 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The FTI program encompasses the replacement and modernization 

of the telecommunications infrastructure at FAA facilities. The FTI 

program was designed to bring about operational savings for the 

FAA by quickly moving the agency to a more efficient and less expensive array of communications equipment. The Committee expects that it will see the final investment of funds for the FTI program in the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

The FTI program is on the Administrator’s list of major capital 

projects that is ‘‘on-time’’ and ‘‘on-budget.’’ Yet, just last year the 

FTI program had to be rebaselined because it had fallen behind 

schedule and exceeded its expected costs. The FAA extended its 

schedule by 1 full year, and the costs of the program have grown 

by more than $113,000,000. The program delays have forced the 

FAA to divert about $65,000,000 in unbudgeted operating costs to 

maintaining antiquated phones lines for an additional year because 

the new system is still not fully operational. This $65,000,000 could 

have been spent on higher priority concerns including boosting the 

safety staff of the FAA. Since the justification for the entire FTI 

program rests on moving quickly from one telecommunications system to the next, it is of utmost importance that FAA not have to 

rebaseline this program again. 

Senior management at the FAA have taken responsibility for 

some of the troubles with the FTI program by admitting that they 

did not give clear direction to FAA field personnel as to the importance of quickly making the transition to the new infrastructure. 

The Committee respects such candor, but remains concerned about 

the capability of the FAA to manage its capital programs efficiently. In order to meet the current schedule for FTI, management 

at the FAA needs to ensure the rapid transition of a large backlog 

of services and guarantee the reliability of the new communications 

service. 

Volcano Monitoring.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for 

the Volcano Monitoring program, an increase of $2,000,000 over 

the budget request. The Alaska Volcano Monitoring/Observatory 

program provides vital volcanic hazard monitoring equipment to 

monitor ash plumes and volcanic activity throughout Alaska. With 

adequate monitoring technologies in place, flights can be diverted 

away from problem areas and disruptions and fatalities can be 

avoided. Requested by Senator Stevens. 

Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X.—The Committee 

recommends $37,900,000 for the Airport Surface Detection Equipment—Model X [ASDE–X] program. This funding level is equal to 

the budget request, and $32,700,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. 

Runway incursions continue to be one of the most critical safety 

concerns of the aviation industry. The most deadly aviation accident in the world was a runway incursion that killed 583 people 

as two passenger jumbo jets collided on a Canary Islands airport 
39 

in March 1977. The National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 

has continued to call for the FAA to address runway incursions on 

its ‘‘Most Wanted’’ list ever since the Board began its list in 1990. 

Under the ASDE–X program, the FAA is developing equipment 

that is designed to prevent runway incursions by providing air traffic controllers with more accurate and detailed information about 

the current situation on airport surfaces. This program represents 

the FAA’s primary response to the NTSB. The Board, however, still 

characterizes the response of the agency as ‘‘open’’ and ‘‘unacceptable,’’ and the Committee is disappointed in how the FAA has managed the ASDE–X program. 

Although it is on the list of on-time and on-budget programs, the 

FAA rebaselined the program in September 2005. At the time of 

the rebaselining, the FAA added 53 months to the program schedule and $44,900,000 to its budget. The rebaselining, however, was 

even more significant in terms of how it restructured the goals of 

the entire program. The FAA decided that the agency could put the 

ASDE–X equipment to better use by installing it at large and medium airports rather than at small airports. Through the rebaselining process, the FAA dropped its target of installing ASDE–3 

and ASDE–X technology at 59 large, medium and small airports, 

and the agency replaced it with a new target of installing ASDE– 

X at 35 large and medium airports. Fifteen airports are not receiving any equipment following this rebaselining. The ASDE–X program illustrates the misleading nature of reporting on rebaselined 

programs as though they were simply on-time and on-budget. 

ASDE–X not only has a new schedule and budget, but it is serving 

a completely different purpose. In short, ASDE–X is no longer the 

same program. 

The Inspector General for the Department of Transportation testified before the Committee on May 10, saying that since the rebaselining in 2005, the ASDE–X program continues to fall behind 

schedule and experience cost increases. The Inspector General 

noted, ‘‘. . . the cost to acquire and install some ASDE–X activities 

has increased by $94,000,000 since the 2005 re-baseline. To stay 

within the revised baseline, FAA offset this cost by decreasing 

planned expenditures funds [sic] for seven other program activities, 

such as construction for later deployment sites.’’ The Inspector 

General also explained that the FAA is not meeting its deadlines 

for installing ASDE–X equipment. The Committee no longer believes that the ASDE–X schedule or budget is realistic, and the 

Committee is concerned that the FAA continues to redefine the 

ASDE–X program in order to maintain the illusion that its schedule and budget are still relevant. 

The ASDE–X program is also an example where the agency has 

developed poor measures of program success. The FAA says that 

the program is on track to complete its last deployment by February 2011. However, the intermediate benchmarks that the FAA 

has developed to measure the progress of the program relate only 

to the delivery of ASDE–X equipment at each airport site. These 

benchmarks do not relate to the actual operation of ASDE–X equipment at those airports. The Committee notes that, to date, the FAA 

has needed an average of 11 months between the delivery of the 

ASDE–X equipment and its full operation. As mentioned earlier in 
40 

this report, new expensive pieces of equipment are of no use to the 

public unless they are fully operational. The Committee directs the 

FAA to develop deadlines for the initial operating capability and 

the operational readiness date for each of the remaining ASDE–X 

sites, and submit this information to the Committee. In addition, 

the FAA is directed to report to the Committee when the agency 

makes any substantial change to its schedule or budget for the 

ASDE–X program. 

As the program continues to experience trouble with its schedule 

and budget, the Committee is discouraged by the FAA’s slow 

progress in achieving the goals of the program. The ASDE–X equipment functions poorly in rainy and inclement weather, the precise 

conditions under which air traffic controllers need assistance in 

order to prevent runway incursions. The ASDE–X equipment also 

does not yet provide any assistance to air traffic controllers for situations in which runways intersect or taxiways converge. These 

situations are common at airports, and were part of the original 

definition of the ASDE–X program. The Committee is concerned 

that the ASDE–X program will deliver less than promised even 

while it takes longer and costs more to complete. 

The performance of the ASDE–X equipment in rainy weather is 

of particular concern as the Committee hears numerous reports of 

significant trouble with this aspect of the program at the SeattleTacoma International Airport (SeaTac). Difficulties at SeaTac have 

led air traffic controllers to send a ground vehicle to the end of runway during foggy conditions in order to confirm that a false reading 

from ASDE–X was not, in fact, an aircraft. Controllers have been 

required to fill out hundreds of forms documenting such false 

alarms, and eventually the controllers lost confidence in its value, 

especially in rainy conditions. The Committee will continue to follow the development of ASDE–X at the Seattle airport, and urges 

the FAA to take all necessary steps to make the equipment an effective tool for the airport’s air traffic controllers as soon as possible. 

The Committee is further discouraged by the failure of the FAA 

to take a disciplined approach to contracting with outside vendors 

on the ASDE–X program. The FAA entered into a cost-plus contract for most of the ASDE–X program, even while the program requirements were not well defined. In fact, the agency entered into 

fixed-price contract elements only for 41 percent of the program, 

mostly involving the procurement of the ASDE–X equipment. The 

FAA must manage the ASDE–X program more effectively than it 

has to date if this technology is going to serve its purpose and reduce the likelihood of runway incursions. 

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement.—The Committee recommendation includes $166,700,000 for new and replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON consolidation projects, an increase of $16,100,000 from the budget request. 

Location Amount Requested by 

Collin County Regional Airport at McKinney, TX—Tower Replacement .................. ∂$1,500,000 Hutchison/Cornyn 

Palm Springs Airport, CA—Tower Construction ...................................................... ∂1,500,000 Boxer 

Barnstable Municipal Airport, MA—Tower Construction ......................................... ∂4,000,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Nantucket Memorial Airport, MA—Tower Replacement ........................................... ∂4,000,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Greenwood Airport, MS—Tower Construction .......................................................... ∂1,500,000 Lott/Cochran 
41 

Location Amount Requested by 

Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport, MS—Tower Replacement .............................. ∂3,600,000 Cochran 

Kona, HI Tower Replacement Project.—The Committee remains 

concerned with the FAA’s progress in replacing the aging air traffic 

control tower at Kona International Airport at Keahole, Hawaii. 

The Committee first appropriated funds for the replacement of this 

wooden structure in fiscal year 2005. Yet the FAA is only now beginning work to develop a site for the new facility. The Committee 

understands that the FAA will be ready to contract for the full construction of this project in 2009 and expects the FAA to request in 

its 2009 budget all the funds necessary to award this contract as 

expeditiously as possible. The Committee will not entertain any 

further requests by the Administrator to reprogram funds already 

appropriated for this project to other tower sites. 

Chicago O’Hare Modernization Program.—The Committee directs 

the FAA to negotiate a construction-leaseback agreement with the 

O’Hare Modernization Program [OMP]. This agreement should represent an agreement between the OMP and the FAA for the reimbursement of funds to the OMP for costs related to the design and 

construction of the new airport traffic control tower [ATCT] at Chicago O’Hare International Airport. This can be accommodated 

through a construction-leaseback program similar to the agreement 

in place between the FAA and Washington Dulles International 

Airport. Requested by Senator Durbin. 

Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR–9].—The Committee has provided $11,300,000 for the Airport Surveillance Radar—Model 9 

[ASR–9] program. The amount provided is $5,000,000 more than 

the budget request. The Committee’s monitoring of the needs of the 

O’Hare Modernization Project [OMP] indicate that this additional 

funding will be needed to site and install an additional ASR–9 at 

O’Hare to address the capacity demands that will be created by the 

project. 

Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance, Provo, Utah.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for preliminary site analysis, survey, and construction of a Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance 

System to meet the unique radar coverage needs of the region 

around Provo Municipal Airport, Utah. The Committee has been 

concerned for several years regarding the level of radar coverage 

being provided for the mountainous areas around Provo, Utah, and 

is encouraged by the idea of using multilateration technologies to 

provide a safe, cost effective solution to Provo’s needs. The Committee directs the FAA to work toward developing a solution that 

addresses the unique topographical challenges presented in and 

around Provo Municipal. Requested by Senators Bennett and 

Hatch. 

Radar Relocation, Bismarck Municipal Airport, North Dakota.— 

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the relocation of an 

ASR–8 radar at Bismarck Municipal Airport, North Dakota. Requested by Senators Dorgan and Conrad. 

Terminal Radar, Santa Fe, New Mexico.—The Committee is 

aware of the desire for a terminal radar to serve the region of 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Committee encourages the FAA to 
42 

work with Santa Fe and the State of New Mexico to improve radar 

coverage for the area. Requested by Senator Bingaman. 

Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP].—The Committee 

has provided $10,500,000 for the Voice Recorder Replacement Program. The amount provided is $4,600,000 more than the budget request. The Committee is concerned by indications that this important program may not be progressing at a rate to enable all installations to be completed on schedule. As such, the Committee has 

added this additional funding to accelerate the installation of this 

equipment beyond the current rate. 

Flight Service Stations Modernization.—The Committee recommends $5,100,000 for Flight Service Stations [FSS] Modernization. The funding level is the same as the budget request, and 

$1,052,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Under 

FSS Modernization, the FAA has transitioned the operation of most 

of its flight service stations to a private vendor. This program also 

included the upgrade and consolidation of many of these facilities. 

The Committee is disappointed to hear reports of poor service 

levels in those flight service stations that were transitioned to a 

private vendor and consolidated. The most significant problems 

have included system outages, unanswered and dropped phone 

calls, excessive hold times, and poor quality briefings. Furthermore, 

many pilots complain that employees at the service stations are unable to provide weather information, file a flight plan, or supply 

critical notices to airmen. These problems threaten the safety of 

the general aviation community. Although these services have been 

contracted out to a private vendor, the Committee hold the FAA accountable to its promise of improved service. The Committee expects the FAA to take responsibility for this program and to resolve 

these issues quickly. 

The Committee is also concerned about an issue raised by the 

FAA’s management of its fiscal year 2007 resources. The FAA has 

had more flexibility in allocating its funds for fiscal year 2007 than 

it has had in previous fiscal years. FAA used this flexibility to 

spend $8,085,106 in additional funds on FSS-related needs that the 

agency never disclosed to the Committee before reallocating for the 

needs of this program. Of this total addition to FSS-related funding, only $152,002 shows up under the FSS line item. The rest of 

the funding increase is masked in lines for FAA buildings and 

equipment, transition engineering and support, technical support 

services contract, and under the FTA Telecommunications Infrastructure program. 

The funds reallocated for FSS-related needs will cover the cost 

of repairing facilities, as well as moving, modifying, and installing 

equipment. The FAA anticipated all of these needs since the beginning of the program, and yet did not estimate any of their costs in 

the original budget for the FSS program. Although the FAA could 

not know in advance the exact number of consolidations that would 

occur under FSS, the design of the program rested on the agency 

achieving a minimum number of consolidations. The Committee is 

frustrated with the FAA’s failure to disclose the true costs of the 

FSS program, and refusal to make a good faith effort at estimating 

all of its needs. The Committee expects that in the future the FAA 
43 

will avoid obscuring costs in this manner for the FSS program or 

for any other capital program in its budget. 

The Committee has funded the budget request for FSS modernization for fiscal year 2008. Consistent with the budget request, 

these funds will be used solely to modernize stations in Alaska. 

Such stations were prohibited by law from being included in the 

FAA’s privatization of this activity. 

Instrument Landing System [ILS] Establishment.—The Committee recommends $14,950,000 for establishment of instrument 

landing systems. Adjustments to the budget request are as follows: 

Location Amount Requested by 

Alliance Municipal Airport, NE ................................................................................. ∂$700,000 Nelson, Ben 

Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, IA ........................................................................ ∂2,450,000 Harkin/Grassley 

Aiken Municipal Airport, SC ..................................................................................... ∂1,300,000 Graham 

Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC ................................................................ ∂1,500,000 Burr 

Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP].—The 

Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the procurement and installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including high 

intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing lights 

[ALSF–2] and medium intensity approach lighting system 

[MALSR]. The amount provided is $3,000,000 more than the budget request. These additional resources shall be used to continue the 

program of providing lighting systems at rural airfields throughout 

Alaska. Requested by Senator Stevens. 

Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS].— The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS]. The ANICS program 

plays a major role in increased flight safety in Alaska through providing updates and technical refreshes of old communications 

equipment to ensure that communication systems are reliable. Requested by Senator Stevens. 

Facilities Decommissioning—NDB.—The Committee recommends 

$5,400,000 for the Facilities Decommissioning program, a decrease 

of $2,600,000 from the administration’s request. The Committee believes that the most cost beneficial sites can be accomplished within the funds provided. 

Electrical Power System—Sustain and Support.—The Committee 

recommends $38,000,000 for the Electrical Power Systems program, a decrease of $3,000,000 from the administration’s request. 

The Committee expects the FAA to reorder projects within this program so that those projects with the strongest cost-benefit ratios 

can be executed in fiscal year 2008. This reduction is not expected 

to have any impact on National Airspace System [NAS] operations. 

Center for Aviation Safety Research.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Center for Aviation Safety Research, 

Missouri, to focus on issues such as safety management systems, 

safety culture, maintenance resource management and crew management for commercial, corporate and private aviation. Requested 

by Senator Bond. 

Program Support Leases.—The Committee recommends 

$40,000,000 for program support leases. The amount provided is 

$4,000,000 less than the administration’s request. The Committee 

is encouraged by FAA’s ability to reduce lease costs for Air Traffic 
44 

Control equipment. The funds provided are adequate to meet all of 

FAA’s program support leases through fiscal year 2008. 

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD].— The Committee has provided additional funding beyond the President’s budget request for a number of programs that are central to 

the deployment of the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System 

[NGATS]. These initiatives include additional funding for ADS–B, 

the SWIM program and the NextGen integrated airport initiative. 

The Committee is also providing a total of $78,200,000 to provide 

for additional positions at the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development to provide the Administrator with the technical 

expertise necessary to ensure the rapid deployment of NextGen 

technologies. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $130,234,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 140,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 148,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D] appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. 

The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order 

to ensure that the system will safely and efficiently handle future 

volumes of aircraft traffic. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $148,800,000 for the FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended 

level of funding is $8,800,000 more than the budget request and 

$18,566,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2008 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Improve Aviation Safety: 

Fire Research and Safety ................................................................. $6,638,000 $7,350,000 $7,350,000 

Propulsion and Fuel System ............................................................. 4,048,000 4,086,000 4,086,000 

Advance Material/Structural Safety .................................................. 2,843,000 2,713,000 7,713,000 

Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety .................................... 3,848,000 3,574,000 3,574,000 

Aging Aircraft .................................................................................... 18,621,000 14,931,000 16,431,000 

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research .......................... 1,512,000 2,202,000 2,202,000 

System Integration Human Factors .................................................. 7,999,000 9,651,000 9,151,000 

Analysis ............................................................................................. 5,292,000 9,517,000 9,517,000 

Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors ................. 9,654,000 10,254,000 10,054,000 
45 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Aeromedical Research ....................................................................... 7,032,000 6,780,000 7,780,000 

Weather Program .............................................................................. 19,545,000 16,888,000 16,888,000 

Unmanned Aircraft System ............................................................... 1,200,000 3,310,000 2,810,000 

Improve Efficency: 

Joint Program and Development Office ............................................ 18,100,000 14,321,000 14,321,000 

Wake Turbulence ............................................................................... 3,066,000 10,755,000 13,755,000 

GPSCivil Requirements ..................................................................... ........................ 3,600,000 3,100,000 

Reduce Environmental Impacts: Environmental and Energy .................... 16,018,000 15,469,000 15,469,000 

Mission Support: 

System Planning and Resource Management .................................. 1,388,000 1,184,000 1,184,000 

William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility .................. 3,430,000 3,415,000 3,415,000 

RE&D Total ................................................................................... 130,234,000 140,000,000 148,800,000 

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Advance Material/Structural Safety 

The Committee recommends $7,713,000 for advanced material/ 

structural safety, an increase of $5,000,000 more than the budget 

request and $4,870,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level. 

Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures [AMTAS].— 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to support and improve ongoing composite and advanced material research at the Advance 

Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures Center in Seattle, 

Washington. Requested by Senator Murray. 

Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Innovation Center 

[AMMIC].—The Committee recommends $750,000 to support continued integrated research, training and technology innovations in 

advanced manufacturing and materials science at the AMMIC center in Edmonds, Washington. Requested by Senator Murray. 

Jet Engine Technology [JET] Inspection, Iowa.—The Committee 

recommends $750,000 for the development of advanced inspection 

techniques of jet engine components and materials. The jet engine 

technology [JET] inspection program will ensure that the use of a 

new materials and design approaches aimed at improving fuel efficiency still maintains an adequate margin of safety. Requested by 

Senators Harkin and Grassley. 

Support of Aircraft Fleet Evaluation Research [SAFER], Iowa.— 

The Committee recommends $500,000 to advance the development 

of inspection technologies aimed at supporting the continued airworthiness of the commercial airline fleet. The majority of inspection research supported by the FAA has addressed issues associated with aging aircraft. However, as older aircraft are replaced by 

a new generation of aircraft designed for greater fuel efficiency, it 

will be increasingly important to inspect new designs and innovative materials systems for their airworthiness. Requested by Senators Harkin and Grassley. 

National Institute for Aviation Research.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University, Kansas, to upgrade equipment 
46 

and facilities for the Institute’s Advanced Materials Research program. Requested by Senator Brownback. 

Aging Aircraft 

The Committee recommends $16,431,000 for aging aircraft, an 

increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$2,190,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Research on Small Aircraft, Kansas.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for research at the National Institute for 

Aviation Research, Wichita State University, to research the effects 

of aging on small aircraft. Requested by Senators Brownback and 

Roberts. 

Airframe Maintenance Technology AAS Degree Program, Delaware.—The Committee recommends $500,000 to implement at the 

Delaware Technical and Community College an FAA-approved Airframe Maintenance Technology AAS Degree program. The recommended funding will provide the start-up equipment and tooling 

necessary for outfitting the classrooms and labs before the program 

is able to accept students. Requested by Senator Carper. 

Aeromedical Research 

The Committee recommends $7,780,000 for aeromedical research, 

an increase of $1,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$748,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee continues to be concerned about the issue of flight attendant 

fatigue, and whether current regulations provide adequate rest 

time for flight attendants. Pursuant to the Committee’s request in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the FAA submitted a 

report in July 2006 on the impact of the minimum rest requirements of FAR 121.467 and FAR 135.273. The study was limited in 

nature; however, the report stated that flight attendants are ‘‘experiencing fatigue and tiredness and as such, (fatigue) is a salient 

issue warranting further evaluation.’’ In order to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of fatigue on flight attendants, the Committee directs FAA to utilize $1,000,000 of its appropriation for 

CAMI to carry out its recommendations for further study of this 

problem. The Committee directs CAMI to submit a report to Congress not later than December 31, 2009, and expects the report to 

include analysis in the six areas that CAMI identified in its report 

of July 2006; a survey of field operations, a focused study of incident reports, field research on the effects of fatigue, a validation of 

models for assessing flight attendant fatigue, international policies 

and practices, and the potential benefits of training. 

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY

Wake Turbulence 

The Committee recommends $13,755,000 for wake turbulence, an 

increase of $3,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$10,689,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee is providing the increase of $3,000,000 to the budget request 

for Spiroid Winglet Fuel Efficiency Research. The spiroid research 

project will explore next generation winglet designs and tech-
47 

nologies to enhance wing lift and stability, and to generate increased aircraft fuel efficiency. Requested by Senator Murray. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on obligations 

Limitation, 2007 ................................................................................................................. $4,399,000,000 $3,514,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 4,300,000,000 2,750,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 4,399,000,000 3,514,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation’s airports, including those investments that 

emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to 

FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway 

incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$3,514,500,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2008, 

which is $764,500,000 more than the budget estimate and equal to 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The Committee recommendation 

is sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport 

and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards continue to be 

met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. 

In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $4,399,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. The recommended level is $99,000,000 above the budget estimate and 

equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. This appropriation is 

sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward in the bill. 

Airport Discretionary Grants.—Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA to provide 

funding, out of available resources, for those projects listed in the 

table below in the corresponding amounts. The Committee agrees 

that State apportionment funds may be construed as discretionary 

funds for the purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum extent possible, the Administrator should work to ensure 

that airport sponsors for these projects first use available entitlement funds to finance the projects. However, the FAA should not 

require sponsors to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary 

projects funded in the coming year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal year 2008 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that the specific funding allocated in the 

table below shall not diminish or prejudice the application of a spe-
48 

cific airport or geographic region to receive other AIP discretionary 

grants or multi-year letters of intent. 

State Airport Name Project Description Amount Requested by 

AK Akutan ...................................................... Construction of an airport ..................... $3,500,000 Stevens 

AL Franklin Field ........................................... Land acquisition, design and construction, relocation and extension of the 

existing runway and renovation of 

airport facility.

2,250,000 Shelby 

AR Northwest Arkansas Regional .................. Construct second landing surface ........ 4,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

AR Texarkana Regional—Webb Field ........... Construct new Aircraft Firefighting and 

Rescue Station.

1,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor International ............ Taxiway/ramp airfield improvements ..... 750,000 Kyl 

CO Denver International ................................ Concrete repairs to three runways ........ 3,000,000 Salazar 

ID Boise ........................................................ Planning, design, and construction to 

widen and lengthen Runway 9/27.

1,250,000 Craig/Crapo 

IL Lake in the Hills ...................................... Relocation of parallel taxiway ............... 1,000,000 Durbin 

IL Lewis University ....................................... Extension of runway and taxiway .......... 1,000,000 Durbin/ 

Obama 

IL Waukegan Regional ................................. Runway extension, land acquisition and 

environmental study.

1,000,000 Durbin 

IN Fort Wayne International ......................... Install guidance signs ........................... 250,000 Bayh/Lugar 

KS Manhattan Regional ................................ Runway safety area improvements ....... 2,000,000 Brownback 

KY Louisville International ............................ Widen runway 17R–35L to accommodate Group VI aircraft.3,250,000 McConnell 

LA Alexandria International .......................... Runway extension and upgrades ........... 1,000,000 Vitter/ 

Landrieu 

MI Capital City .............................................. Relocation of DeWitt Road and purchase of land for runway extension.5,000,000 Stabenow/ 

Levin 

MI MBS International .................................... New terminal building ........................... 2,000,000 Stabenow/ 

Levin 

MN St. Cloud .................................................. Land acquisition .................................... 1,500,000 Coleman/ 

Klobuchar 

MO Columbia Regional .................................. Widen and extend runway 13–31 .......... 2,700,000 Bond 

MO Eldon Model Airpark ................................ Construct runway 18/36—Phase I ........ 420,000 Bond 

MO Max B. Swisher Skyhave .......................... Update and expand runway and terminal.1,380,000 Bond 

MS Gulfport-Biloxi .......................................... Taxiway construction and rehabilitation, 

noise mitigation.

2,100,000 Cochran/Lott 

MS Jackson-Evers International ..................... Rehabilitation and extension of 

taxiways and runways.

2,100,000 Cochran 

MS John Bell Williams ................................... Runway extension and taxiway .............. 2,000,000 Lott 

MS Tunica ...................................................... Runway and parallel taxi extension and 

paving.

1,300,000 Cochran 

NC Statesville Regional ................................. Improve and extend runways, ramp 

areas, and taxiways.

1,000,000 Dole/Burr 

ND Grand Forks International ........................ Construction of a runway ...................... 2,000,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

NE Airport Authority of the County of Scotts 

Bluff.

Maintenance of Airport runways and 

taxiways, safety factors.

1,000,000 Nelson, Ben 

NM Albuquerque International Sunport ......... Construction of aircraft parking ramp .. 2,000,000 Domenici/ 

Bingaman 

NV Carson City .............................................. Replace pavement and realignment of 

the single runway.

3,000,000 Reid 

NY Niagara Falls International ..................... Construct new terminal apron ............... 2,500,000 Schumer/ 

Clinton 

OR McNary Field ............................................ Expand runway capacity ........................ 1,500,000 Wyden/Smith 

OR Roberts Field, Redmond Municipal ......... Expand the terminal .............................. 3,750,000 Wyden/Smith 

PA Erie International ..................................... Extend Runway 06–24 ........................... 1,500,000 Specter 

TN Upper Cumberland Regional ................... Complete runway and taxiway extensions.1,000,000 Alexander 

TX San Marcos Municipal ............................. Terminal and t-hangar construction ..... 2,250,000 Hutchison 

VT Rutland State Airport .............................. Installation of MALSR lighting and an 

instrument landing system.

2,000,000 Leahy 

VT Vermont Statewide ................................... Various improvements ........................... 1,500,000 Sanders 
49 

State Airport Name Project Description Amount Requested by 

WI Chippewa Valley Regional ....................... Redesign terminal; improve terminal; 

and airside and landside improvements.

3,250,000 Kohl 

WV West Virginia Statewide .......................... Various improvements ........................... 6,000,000 Byrd 

Administrative Expenses.—The Committee recommends 

$80,676,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level is 

$170 less than the budget estimate, and $5,705,170 more than the 

fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Airport Cooperative Research.—The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This 

funding level is equal to the budget estimate, and equal to fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. 

Airport Technology.—The Committee recommends $18,712,000 

for airport technology research. This funding level is $74 less than 

the budget request, and $842,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. 

Small Community Air Service Development.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to administer to the Small Community Air 

Service Development Program. This funding level is equal to fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level. The budget estimate did not include funding for this program. 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, 2007 ..................................................................................... $621,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 185,500,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 

375 in fiscal year 2007. 

Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the FAA 

‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. 

The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the FAA 

and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such 

services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. 

Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as 

fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be 

credited to the Operations account. 
50 

Section 114 extends the terms and conditions of the aviation insurance program, commonly known as ‘‘war risk insurance,’’ and 

the limitation on air carrier liability for third party claims arising 

out of acts of terrorism. 

Section 115 includes legislative provisions pertaining to the retirement age of commercial pilots. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to 

foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway 

and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within 

national forests, national parks, indian lands and other public 

lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of 

$40,256,051,359 would be provided for the activities of the Federal 

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2007. The recommendation 

is $670,975,955 more than the budget request, and $275,970,324 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The following table 

summarizes the Committee’s recommendations (excluding rescissions): 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation ................ $39,086,464,683 $39,585,075,404 $40,216,051,359 

Pay raise (section 11 of Public Law 110–5) .......................... 2,794,352 .............................. ..............................

Emergency relief program (Public Law 110–28) .................... 871,022,000 .............................. ..............................

Appalachian development highway system ............................. 19,800,000 .............................. 20,000,000 

Delta regional transportation development ............................. .............................. .............................. 20,000,000 

Total ............................................................................ 39,980,081,035 39,585,075,404 40,256,051,359 

The Committee is acutely concerned that the current balances 

and projected receipts to the Highway Trust Fund are not sufficient 

to continue funding the levels authorized for the Federal-aid highway program or the important highway and motor carrier safety 

programs through fiscal year 2009. The chart below displays projections by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget of balances to the Highway Trust Fund if the authorized levels are provided for the pertinent highway and safety 

programs. 
51 

In testimony before the Committee on February 8, the Secretary 

acknowledged that ‘‘The highway funding problem is not going to 

go away, nor can we put it off until the last minute. So as we go 

through this budget process, I hope to start working with Congress 

now on solutions for long-term funding.’’ The Committee concurs in 

the Secretary’s observation even though it hasn’t heard any concrete ideas or solutions offered by the Secretary since her statement. This problem must be addressed urgently so that the Committee can adequately fund the Nation’s highway infrastructure 

needs in fiscal year 2009. Absent adequate revenues to replenish 

the trust fund, the Congress could be required to dramatically and 

precipitously cut highway investments nationwide simply to keep 

the trust fund solvent. For that reason, the Committee was pleased 

to receive the written assurances from the bipartisan leadership of 

the Senate Finance Committee, stating that they are ‘‘dedicated to 

finding the necessary revenues to keep the Highway Trust Fund 

whole for the life of the current authorization.’’ The urgency of addressing this problem in the near term cannot be overstated. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $360,991,620 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 384,556,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 377,556,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

offices. 
52 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$377,556,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is $7,000,000 less than the budget request and $16,564,380 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Of the total obligation limitation requested by the FHWA for administrative expenses, the agency has asked for just over 

$15,000,000 in order to fill 210 vacant positions. These vacancies 

are primarily for engineers, planners, financial managers, and 

other specialists. Of the total number of vacancies, 106 are located 

at FHWA headquarters. 

The Committee recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the 

agency to fill its most critical vacancies. The Committee also directs the FHWA to submit within 90 days a detailed staffing plan, 

which includes target staffing levels at both headquarters offices 

and in the field, the location and job title of each vacancy, and an 

explanation for how the specified increases to the agency staffing 

level would improve the operations of the FHWA. The staffing plan 

should detail actions that the FHWA intends to take during fiscal 

year 2008, as well as further needs that the agency hopes to address through the fiscal year 2009 budget process. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2007 ..................................................................................... $39,086,464,683 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 39,585,075,404 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,216,051,359 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support to 

States and localities for development, construction, and repair of 

highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed 

from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of 

the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2008 Federal-aid 

highways obligations to $40,216,051,359, which is $630,975,955 

more than the budget request, and $1,129,586,676 more than the 

fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2008 Federal-aid 

highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting fiscal 

year 2008 obligations on transportation research to $429,800,000. 

The recommendation is equal to the budget request, and it is consistent with the authorized level. This specific limitation controls 

spending for the transportation research and technology programs 

of the FHWA, and it includes the intelligent transportation sys-
53 

tems; surface transportation research; technology deployment, 

training and education; university transportation research; and the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

The Committee also recommends funding the Congestion Initiative at the Department of Transportation at a level of 

$135,775,955. The Congestion Initiative includes several discreet 

elements that are designed to mitigate the impact of traffic congestion in metropolitan areas and along significant transportation corridors. The largest element of the initiative is the creation of urban 

partnerships between the Department of Transportation and metropolitan areas that promise to implement a comprehensive plan 

involving congestion pricing, transit services, telecommuting and 

flexible work schedules, and the use of innovative technology. 

Other important elements of the initiative include work to facilitate 

multi-state transportation corridors (‘‘Corridors of the Future’’), the 

focus of technical support on severe bottlenecks to freight transportation, and the innovative use of technology to mitigate traffic congestion. 

The Committee commends the Department for taking an active 

role in addressing the important issue in congestion. The Committee also acknowledges the personal involvement and level of effort that the Secretary has taken in the development of this initiative. 

The Committee cannot fund this initiative in the manner proposed by the President—namely, by redirecting resources that have 

already been dedicated to other priority transportation projects, as 

requested by the Department. The Congressional Budget Office has 

disqualified this option as a legitimate budget-neutral offset for 

this initiative. In addition, the Committee does not support cancelling other projects in order to fund this initiative. Rather, the Committee has funded this initiative by redirecting resources not yet 

apportioned under the Revenue Alligned Budget Authority [RABA] 

program. 

Consistent with the Secretary’s initiative, the bill includes a provision requested in the budget that allows the FHWA to collect and 

spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert firms in the 

field of municipal and project finance to assist the agency in the 

provision of TIFIA credit instruments. 

The following table displays the amount of obligation limitation 

that was distributed to each State in fiscal year 2007, that would 

be distributed to each State under the FHWA budget request, and 

that would be distributed to each State under the funding level recommended by the Committee: 

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION TO THE STATES 

State 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

ALABAMA .................................................................................. $616,549,671 $654,741,253 $654,741,253

ALASKA ..................................................................................... 268,984,812 297,610,036 297,610,036 

ARIZONA ................................................................................... 608,319,903 608,413,742 608,413,742 

ARKANSAS ................................................................................ 383,105,107 415,595,114 415,595,114 

CALIFORNIA .............................................................................. 2,688,344,086 3,159,864,049 3,159,864,049 

COLORADO ................................................................................ 409,183,629 445,670,512 445,670,512 

CONNECTICUT ........................................................................... 406,571,023 430,384,239 430,384,239 
54 

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION TO THE STATES—Continued 

State 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

DELAWARE ................................................................................ 121,181,507 131,983,190 131,983,190 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ........................................................... 126,497,742 132,894,607 132,894,607 

FLORIDA .................................................................................... 1,585,543,079 1,570,688,196 1,570,688,196 

GEORGIA ................................................................................... 1,094,488,911 1,157,564,829 1,157,564,829 

HAWAII ...................................................................................... 130,305,474 136,856,219 136,856,219

IDAHO ....................................................................................... 228,508,722 242,576,028 242,576,028

ILLINOIS .................................................................................... 1,033,163,070 1,141,333,677 1,141,333,677 

INDIANA .................................................................................... 795,042,623 832,814,575 832,814,575 

IOWA ......................................................................................... 336,721,931 361,576,329 361,576,329 

KANSAS ..................................................................................... 315,685,096 332,551,764 332,551,764 

KENTUCKY ................................................................................ 533,868,416 565,490,861 565,490,861 

LOUISIANA ................................................................................ 469,195,077 513,550,231 513,550,231 

MAINE ....................................................................................... 139,579,368 150,404,519 150,404,519

MARYLAND ................................................................................ 500,894,869 515,237,935 515,237,935 

MASSACHUSETTS ...................................................................... 511,837,402 541,940,579 541,940,579 

MICHIGAN ................................................................................. 930,935,426 1,051,713,308 1,051,713,308 

MINNESOTA ............................................................................... 485,585,015 568,542,874 568,542,874 

MISSISSIPPI .............................................................................. 367,255,281 391,510,985 391,510,985 

MISSOURI ................................................................................. 713,638,452 774,002,714 774,002,714 

MONTANA .................................................................................. 294,932,864 313,280,274 313,280,274 

NEBRASKA ................................................................................ 228,415,038 243,676,747 243,676,747 

NEVADA .................................................................................... 214,993,211 212,990,680 212,990,680 

NEW HAMPSHIRE ...................................................................... 140,780,427 147,522,240 147,522,240 

NEW JERSEY ............................................................................. 841,313,477 849,381,509 849,381,509 

NEW MEXICO ............................................................................ 290,061,270 314,985,665 314,985,665 

NEW YORK ................................................................................ 1,396,086,909 1,464,779,677 1,464,779,677 

NORTH CAROLINA ..................................................................... 894,013,564 939,625,320 939,625,320 

NORTH DAKOTA ........................................................................ 193,341,246 206,034,763 206,034,763 

OHIO ......................................................................................... 1,114,854,934 1,216,841,504 1,216,841,504 

OKLAHOMA ................................................................................ 470,595,869 504,360,313 504,360,313 

OREGON .................................................................................... 347,705,929 377,344,456 377,344,456 

PENNSYLVANIA ......................................................................... 1,389,376,513 1,454,518,380 1,454,518,380 

RHODE ISLAND ......................................................................... 155,183,242 163,100,734 163,100,734 

SOUTH CAROLINA ..................................................................... 523,952,440 524,665,948 524,665,948 

SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................... 202,817,995 220,787,059 220,787,059 

TENNESSEE ............................................................................... 675,192,691 708,483,718 708,483,718 

TEXAS ....................................................................................... 2,639,825,359 2,671,100,705 2,671,100,705 

UTAH ......................................................................................... 225,317,398 235,723,736 235,723,736 

VERMONT .................................................................................. 130,067,666 143,414,064 143,414,064 

VIRGINIA ................................................................................... 835,037,989 868,661,604 868,661,604 

WASHINGTON ............................................................................ 529,894,520 566,928,375 566,928,375 

WEST VIRGINIA ......................................................................... 330,173,460 356,146,435 356,146,435 

WISCONSIN ............................................................................... 601,107,544 638,231,517 638,231,517 

WYOMING .................................................................................. 201,565,716 225,244,884 225,244,884 

SUBTOTAL ................................................................... 30,667,592,963 32,693,342,672 32,693,342,672 

High Priority Projects ............................................................... 2,731,211,503 2,824,012,800 2,824,012,800 

Allocated Programs .................................................................. 5,687,660,217 4,067,719,932 4,067,719,932 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 39,086,464,683 39,585,075,404 39,585,075,404 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our Nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much 

flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA’s assistance and oversight. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], the highway, highway 

safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 2009, makes 
55 

Federal-aid highways funds available in various categories of 

spending. 

The following table reflects an estimated distribution of obligations among the largest of the Federal-aid highway program categories, and the table is followed by a more detailed discussion of 

many of the categories of Federal-aid highway spending: (The obligation limitation recommended by the Committee is applicable to 

most of these program categories, but the resources for certain categories of spending are exempt from the limitation). 

ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SPENDING 

[In millions of dollars] 

Federal-aid highway category 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Spending subject to obligation limitation: 

National highway system ................................................ 6,770 8,237 8,237 

Interstate maintenance ................................................... 4,541 5,525 5,525 

Surface transportation program ..................................... 8,288 9,906 9,906 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation .......................... 4,123 5,017 5,017 

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement ..... 1,077 1,081 1,081 

Highway safety improvement .......................................... 321 322 322 

Equity Bonus ................................................................... 2,524 2,734 2,734 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation ... 131 93 93 

High priority projects ...................................................... 2,536 1,295 1,295 

Projects of national and regional significance .............. 433 306 306 

Other categories of spending ......................................... 8,870 5,206 5,206 

Subtotal ...................................................................... 39,614 39,722 39,722 

Spending exempt from obligation limitation: 

Emergency relief ............................................................. 192 123 123 

Equity bonus ................................................................... 719 671 671 

Priority projects from previous authorization bills ......... 92 49 49 

Direct loan reestimate .................................................... 7 .............................. ..............................

Subtotal ...................................................................... 1,010 843 843 

Emergency relief (from supplemental authority) ..................... 583 .............................. ..............................

Reimbursable program ............................................................ 120 120 120 

Total obligations ......................................................... 41,327 40,685 40,685 

National Highway System [NHS].—The Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the NHS, 

which was subsequently established as a 161,000 mile road system 

by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This 

system serves major population centers, intermodal transportation 

facilities, international border crossings, and major destinations. 

The NHS program provides funding for this system consisting of 

roads that are of primary Federal interest. The NHS consists of the 

current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways 

and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department’s designated Strategic Highway Network, and 

roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal 

share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the 

sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of 4 years. 

Interstate Maintenance [IM].—The 46,876 mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains 
56 

a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the 

Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other 

than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The Federal share for 

the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for 4 years. 

Within the funding available to the interstate maintenance discretionary program, funds are to be made available to the following 

projects and activities: 

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

I–225 at Colfax Avenue and 17th Avenue, CO ..................................................... $1,000,000 Salazar/Allard 

Brent Spence Bridge Study, OH ............................................................................. 1,000,000 Brown/Voinovich 

City of Columbus Interstate 70/71 Cap Project, OH ............................................. 500,000 Voinovich 

Columbia River Crossing, OR ................................................................................. 1,000,000 Smith, G./Wyden 

Fairview Street/I–385 Interchange, SC .................................................................. 500,000 Graham, L 

Fernley Interchange at I–80, NV ............................................................................ 1,000,000 Ensign 

Green River Area Transportation Corridor 2025 Plan, KY ..................................... 500,000 Bunning 

H–1 Improvements Kinau and Lusitana Ramps Project, HI ................................. 5,000,000 Inouye 

I–15 Bluff Street Interchange, UT ......................................................................... 1,000,000 Hatch/Bennett 

I–15 Helena Custer Avenue Interchange, MT ........................................................ 1,500,000 Tester/Baucus 

I–15 Widening and Interchanges, Las Vegas, NV ................................................. 1,000,000 Ensign/Reid 

I–29/52nd Avenue Interchange, ND ....................................................................... 1,000,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

I–295, Exit 4 Improvement Project, ME ................................................................. 500,000 Collins/Snowe 

I–40/I–77 interchange in Iredell County, NC ........................................................ 1,000,000 Dole 

I–49 North, LA ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 Vitter/Landrieu 

I–5/I–205 Salmon Creek Interchange Project, WA ................................................ 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

I–5/Port of Tacoma Interchange Improvement Project, WA ................................... 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

I–5/SR510 Lacey Interchange Improvement Project, WA ....................................... 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

I–71 Corridor Access Improvements in Cincinnati, OH ......................................... 500,000 Voinovich 

I–80, Westbound Bridge over Missouri River, NE .................................................. 1,000,000 Hagel 

I–84 Burnt River Canyon, OR ................................................................................ 2,000,000 Wyden/Smith G 

I–84, Curtis Road to Broadway Interchange Widening, ID ................................... 1,500,000 Crapo/Craig 

I–85 at CR 98/Gabbettville Road, Troup Co., GA .................................................. 1,500,000 Chambliss 

I–95 in Cumberland, Harnett, and Johnston Counties, NC ................................... 1,000,000 Dole 

I–95/US 301 Interchange, SC ................................................................................ 500,000 Graham, L 

IH–35W Congestion Relief, TX ............................................................................... 500,000 Hutchison 

Improvement of Highland Pike (KY 1072) To Farrell Drive, KY ............................. 500,000 Bunning 

Interstate 25 Reconstruction, Glenrock to Casper Hat Six Section, WY ............... 1,000,000 Enzi/Thomas 

Interstate 29 Reconstruction/Utility Relocation, Sioux City, IA ............................. 1,500,000 Grassley/Harkin 

Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR ....................... 4,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Meadowood Interchange Complex, NV ................................................................... 500,000 Reid 

Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV .......................................................... 1,500,000 Reid/Ensign 

Turnpike Improvements Project, DE ....................................................................... 2,000,000 Biden/Carper 

US 278 Corridor Construction, SC ......................................................................... 500,000 Graham, L 

Surface Transportation Program [STP].—STP is a flexible program that may be used by States and localities for projects on any 

Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit 

capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and State suballocations are provided. The Federal 

share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 

adjustment, with a 4-year availability period. 

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.—The bridge program enables States to improve the condition of their bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance. 

The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on 

roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors and as local. 
57 

Bridge program funds have a 4-year period of availability with a 

Federal share for all projects, except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For 

those bridges on the Interstate System, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

[CMAQ].—The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 

projects and programs to help meet and maintain national ambient 

air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. A minimum one-half percent of the apportionment is guaranteed to each State. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].—The highway infrastructure safety program features strategic safety planning and 

performance. The program also devotes additional resources and 

supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities and 

injuries on all public roads. 

Federal Lands Highways.—This category funds improvements for 

forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation 

roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that 

provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian 

reservations. 

Within the funding available for the Federal lands highway program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and 

activities: 

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

116th Street NE Interchange Improvement Project, Tulalip Tribes, WA ................ $1,500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

17-Mile Road Reconstruction, Wind River Indian Reservation, WY ...................... 3,000,000 Enzi/Thomas 

Bear River Access Road Forest Street Improvements Project, UT ......................... 1,250,000 Hatch/Bennett 

BIA Route 14 (Gooseneck Road)—Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD .................................... 1,692,000 Johnson 

BIA Route 27—Oglala Sioux Tribe, SD .................................................................. 1,000,000 Johnson 

BRAC-related Improvements in Harford County, MD ............................................. 3,000,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID .................................................................. 3,000,000 Crapo/Craig 

Federal Lands Program, State of Hawaii ............................................................... 1,500,000 Inouye 

Fidalgo Bay Road Improvement Project, Samish Tribe, WA .................................. 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ ............................................................................. 3,000,000 Kyl 

I–80 at Vista Boulevard and McCarran Boulevard, NV ........................................ 1,000,000 Reid 

Kenel Road Rehabilitation and Resurfacing—Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, SD .... 2,000,000 Johnson 

MD355 Corridor Improvement from Woodmont Avenue to I–495 or other improvements necessitated by BRAC-realignment at Bethesda Naval Hospital, 

MD.

3,000,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

Pave from the Sitting Bull Monument to US 12 and from US 12 to north of SD 

1806P from SD 1806 to the end of the pavement in Wakpala, SD.

848,000 Thune 

Safety Project on the Environmental Effects of Dust Suppressant Chemicals on 

Federal Lands Highways, MO.

1,750,000 Bond 

SD 44 and SD 73, Paving in Jackson and Mellette Counties, SD ........................ 900,000 Thune 

Skokomish Tribe Access Road and US–101 Realignment, WA ............................. 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

SR–160 Blue Diamond Highway—Clark and Nye Counties, NV ........................... 3,000,000 Ensign/Reid 

State Highway 150 (US 160 N. to Great Sand Dunes), CO .................................. 3,000,000 Salazar/Allard 

US 212, Paving from Eagle Butte to East of the SD 63 East Junction, Serving 

Cheyenne River Reservation, SD.

1,000,000 Thune/Johnson 

Vermont Federal Lands Projects, VT ...................................................................... 500,000 Leahy 

West Jemez Bypass Construction, Los Alamos County, NM .................................. 2,000,000 Bingaman 
58 

Equity Bonus.—The equity bonus program provides additional 

funds to States to ensure that each State’s total funding from apportioned programs and for High Priority Projects meets certain equity considerations. Each State is guaranteed a minimum rate of 

return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the 

Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA–21. Certain States will maintain the share of total apportionments they each received during 

TEA–21. An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring that 

there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity 

bonus. Of the total amount of funds provided for this program, each 

year $639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation recommended by the Committee. 

Emergency Relief [ER].—Section 125 of title 23, United States 

Code, provides $100,000,000 annually for the ER program. This 

funding is not subject to the obligation limitation recommended by 

the Committee. This program provides funds for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and bridges and federally 

owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the 

result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The ER program 

supplements the commitment of resources by States, their political 

subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy 

expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

Highways for Life.—This program provides funding to demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated performance standards, and new business practices in the highway 

construction process that result in improved safety, faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and improved quality 

and user satisfaction by inviting innovation, new technologies, and 

new practices to be used in highway construction and operations. 

The Committee is concerned that an existing Federal regulation, 

23 CFR 635.411, may serve to limit the development of new products and discourage innovation in highway construction and operations. Known as the ‘‘proprietary products’’ rule, this regulation 

imposes broad restrictions against the States’ ability to use proprietary methods, materials, and equipment on Federal-aid projects. 

As a result, States may find it difficult or impossible to utilize innovative methods, materials, or equipment on Federal-aid projects, 

even when such innovations would improve safety, reduce congestion, or increase the quality and durability of the State’s road network. 

The Committee urges the Secretary to review 23 CFR 635.411 

and take action to ensure that the regulation does not unnecessarily impede or delay any State’s decision to utilize innovative 

methods, materials, or equipment that could improve safety, reduce 

congestion, or increase the quality and durability of highways. 

Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.—This program provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 

facilities. 

Within the funding available to the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities: 
59 

FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Ferry Wahkiakum Replacement, WA ....................................................................... $200,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Glen Cove Ferry Terminal, NY ................................................................................ 1,000,000 Schumer/Clinton 

Haverstraw Ferry Terminal, NY ............................................................................... 400,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Kitsap Transit, Rich-Passage Wake Impact Study, WA ......................................... 2,200,000 Murray/Cantwell 

North Carolina Statewide Ferry System, NC .......................................................... 3,100,000 Dole 

Oak Bluffs Terminal Reconstruction Project, MA ................................................... 1,000,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Port of Detroit Public Dock and Terminal Project, MI ........................................... 3,500,000 Levin/Stabenow 

River Ferry Boat Transportation Program, City of Oklahoma City, OK .................. 2,500,000 Inhofe 

San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Ferry Boat, CA .......................................... 1,000,000 Feinstein 

Swan’s Island Ferry Facilities, ME ......................................................................... 2,500,000 Collins/Snowe 

Vashon Island Passenger Ferry, WA ....................................................................... 600,000 Murray/Cantwell

National Scenic Byways.—This program provides funding for 

roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All 

American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These 

roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 

Transportation and Community and System Preservation 

[TCSP].—The TCSP program provides grants to States and local 

governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies 

to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the 

efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to 

jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Within the funding available to the transportation and community and system preservation program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities: 

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Access road to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Raleigh County, Beckley, 

WV.

$1,400,000 Byrd 

Clayton Pedestrian Grade Separation, Johnston County, NC ................................. 525,000 Burr 

Cobb Parkway Expansion, GA ................................................................................. 500,000 Isakson 

Connersville Intermodal Study, Connersville, IN .................................................... 500,000 Lugar 

Construction and Improvements to County Road One (RS–209) south of I–70 to 

K–32, Leavenworth County, KS.

500,000 Roberts 

Des Moines Creek Trail Access Project, WA ........................................................... 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Downtown Development Authority Streetscape, Dahlonega, GA ............................ 500,000 Chambliss 

Ellsworth Air Force Base Road Improvement, SD .................................................. 1,000,000 Thune 

Flats East Bank Road Relocations and Improvements Project, OH ...................... 500,000 Voinovich/Brown 

Fort Knox Park & Ride Express on US 31W, KY .................................................... 500,000 Bunning 

Hofstra University’s Safe and Sustainable Campus Plan, NY .............................. 1,000,000 Schumer/Clinton 

I–10 Widening in Western Maricopa County, AZ ................................................... 500,000 Kyl 

I–25 at State Highway 16 (Fort Carson Gate 20), CO .......................................... 3,000,000 Salazar/Allard 

I–5 North Macadam Ramp & Street Capacity Improvements, OR ........................ 500,000 Smith, G./Wyden 

Illinois Trails, IL ..................................................................................................... 3,000,000 Durbin/Obama 

Jefferson Park Avenue Project, Charlottesville, VA ................................................ 500,000 Warner/Webb 

Newark Downtown Core Redevelopment District, NJ ............................................. 1,000,000 Lautenberg/Menendez 

Olympic Discovery Trail/Elwha River Pedestrian Bridge, WA ................................. 575,000 Murray 

Pigeon Creek Greenway Passage: Phase I, Evansville, IN ..................................... 1,000,000 Bayh 

Reconstruction of Bangor Street, ME ..................................................................... 500,000 Collins/Snowe 

Robinson Grade Separation, City of Norman, OK .................................................. 500,000 Inhofe 

Separated Grade Crossing for Torrington, WY ....................................................... 500,000 Enzi/Thomas 
60 

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Signal Synchronization System; Baton Rouge, LA ................................................. 500,000 Vitter 

TH 14 from the city of Waseca to I–35 in Owatonna, MN ................................... 500,000 Coleman/Klobuchar 

US Highway 63 Reconstruction, Waterloo, IA ........................................................ 500,000 Grassley 

US 169 Highway Widening Environmental Assessment, City of Owasso, OK ....... 500,000 Inhofe 

US 17 in Beaufort County, NC ............................................................................... 500,000 Dole 

US Highway 212 Expansion—Chaska to Norwood Young America, Carver County, MN.1,000,000 Klobuchar 

US–30, Columbus Viaduct, NE .............................................................................. 500,000 Hagel 

US–30, McCammon to Topaz Bridge, ID ............................................................... 500,000 Crapo 

White Pond Drive Expansion, OH ........................................................................... 1,000,000 Brown 

Illinois Trails.—The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the 

Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] for various transportation enhancement projects throughout the State. The Committees 

expect IDOT to provide funds to the following projects: Aurora bike 

train, Urbana to Danville Trail, Cal-Sag Greenway Bike Trail, Harrisburg to Eldorado Bike Trail, Grand Illinois Trail, Village of Carbon Cliff, General Dacey Trail—Phase 2, SIU—Edwardsville Morris 

Bike Trail, Great River Trail near Savanna, Village of Manteno 

Greenways Trail System and Springfield bike trail. Requested by 

Senators Durbin and Obama. 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation [TIFIA].— 

The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in the development of major infrastructure facilities through greater non-Federal 

and private sector participation, building on public willingness to 

dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under traditional 

funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides secured loans, 

loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit that may be drawn 

upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 

years of project operations. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with 

the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 

1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan 

guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any 

year), as well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

Appalachian Development Highway System.—This program 

makes funds available to construct highways and access roads 

under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 

1965. Under SAFETEA–LU, funding is authorized for each of fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009, is available until expended, and is distributed among the 13 eligible States based on the latest available 

cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional 

Commission. 

High Priority Projects.—Funds are provided for specific projects 

identified in SAFETEA–LU. Over 5,000 projects are identified, 

each with a specified amount of funding over the 5 years of 

SAFETEA–LU. 
61 

Projects of National and Regional Significance.—This program 

provides funding for specific projects of national or regional importance listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $36,032,343,903 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 38,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,955,051,359 

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$40,955,051,359. The recommended level is $2,955,051,359 more 

than the budget request and is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to this and prior 

appropriations acts. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(RESCISSION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The bill rescinds $2,890,000,000 of the unobligated balances of 

funds apportioned to the States under chapter 1 of title 23, United 

States Code, excluding safety programs and funds set aside within 

the State for population areas. The Committee directs the FHWA 

to administer the rescission by allowing each State the maximum 

flexibility in making adjustments among the apportioned highway 

programs. 

APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $19,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System 

[ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102–240). The 

ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are intended to 

replace some of the most deficient and dangerous segments of rural 

roadway in America. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for corridor H in West 

Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System 

[ADHS]. The recommended amount is $200,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 
62 

DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for the Delta Regional Transportation Development Program is authorized under section 1308 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(Public Law 109–59). The Delta Regional Transportation Development Program provides funds to support and encourage multi-state 

transportation planning and corridor development, provide for 

transportation project development, facilitate transportation decisionmaking and support transportation construction in the eight 

States comprising the Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Delta Regional 

Transportation Development Program. The Committee directs 

funding be allocated to the following projects that are listed below: 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

Canton Parkway, MS ................................................................................................ $3,800,000 Cochran 

Caruthersville Downtown Infrastructure Road Redevelopment, Caruthersville, 

MO.

500,000 Bond 

Greenville Street Revitalization, MS ......................................................................... 1,500,000 Cochran 

Highway 67 (Wappapello Bridge) Four-Lane Improvement Project, MO; Ozark Regional Foothills Planning Commission.3,000,000 Bond 

I–20 South Frontage Rd., Vicksburg, MS ................................................................ 1,500,000 Cochran 

Marks Airport, MS ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000 Cochran 

Newburg Bridge Replacement, MO .......................................................................... 240,000 Bond 

Route AB Route Extension, MO; Cape Girardeau County, MO ................................. 760,000 Bond 

Route AB/Nash Road Improvement Project, MO; Bootheel Regional Planning 

Commission.

1,000,000 Bond 

Route D Road Improvement Project, MO; Bootheel Regional Planning Commission, MO.2,500,000 Bond 

Route EE Road/ Multi-Modal Improvement Project, MO; Bootheel Regional Planning Commission.1,000,000 Bond 

Route Y Safety Improvement Project, MO’ Bootheel Regional Planning Commission.1,000,000 Bond 

Statesman Blvd. and Trail, MS ................................................................................ 2,200,000 Cochran 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid 

highway programs. 

Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for use 

on administrative expenses. 

Section 123 rescinds certain funds from the TIFIA program. 

Section 124 designates funds made available under this section 

for the projects and competitive initiatives specified as follows: The Committee recommends $135,775,955 for the Secretary to 

carry out the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s 
63 

Transportation Network, including Urban Partnerships, Corridors 

of the Future, and other programs that support this initiative. 

The Committee notes that communities selected to become an 

Urban Partner with the Department of Transportation must commit themselves to a comprehensive plan that must include each of 

the following elements: congestion pricing, improved transit services, telecommuting and flexible work schedules, and the use of innovative technology. While the initial request for additional funding for the Urban Partnerships Agreements would have focused resources solely on congestion pricing activities, the Committee believes that strength of the Urban Partnerships lies in its comprehensive nature. Therefore, the Committee directs that funding 

made available under this section that the Secretary uses for 

Urban Partnerships, be made available for any of the partnership 

elements rather than focused on only one of those elements. 

The Committee recommends that funding made available under 

this section be made available to the following projects and activities: 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

21st Century Parks Project in Louisville, KY ......................................................... $6,000,000 McConnell 

500 South, I–15 to Redwood Road, UT ................................................................. 1,000,000 Bennett/Hatch 

87th Street Parkway Improvements, Lenexa, KS ................................................... 1,000,000 Brownback 

A–B Street Corridor Connector, WA ........................................................................ 1,800,000 Murray 

American Parkway, PA ............................................................................................ 3,000,000 Specter/Casey 

Baton Rouge Riverfront Development and Levee Pedestrian and Bike Path, 

LA.

1,000,000 Landrieu 

Battleship New Jersey Access Road (Clinton Street) Repaving Project, NJ .......... 630,000 Menendez/Lautenberg 

Big Pasco Industrial Center Intermodal Project, Phase 4, WA ............................. 900,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Blue Earth CSAH 12 Extension/TH 14 Interchange, MN ........................................ 2,000,000 Klobuchar/Coleman 

Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Program, LA ...................................................... 3,000,000 Landrieu/Vitter 

Brewery Grade/Highway 30 Intersection and Flour Mill Property Redevelopment, 

OR.

1,000,000 Wyden/Smith, G 

Bridge over Broadway, Missoula to Rattlesnake National Recreation Area, MT ... 1,000,000 Baucus/Tester 

Bridge Replacements, McKinley County, NM ......................................................... 500,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Bristol Street Widening, Orange County, CA .......................................................... 1,000,000 Feinstein 

Caraway Bridge Overpass, AR ............................................................................... 2,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

CEMAR Trail, IA ...................................................................................................... 500,000 Harkin 

Chittenden County Road Improvement Projects in Colchester (VT Route 15/ 

Campus Road), Essex Junction (VT Route 15), and Milton (US Route 7), VT.

2,500,000 Leahy 

City of Granite Falls Freight Access Project, WA ................................................... 1,500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

City of Riverside Grade Separations, CA ............................................................... 1,000,000 Boxer/Feinstein

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID .................................................................. 2,000,000 Craig/Crapo 

City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project, AL—Twenty First Avenue 

Phase I and University Boulevard Phase III, AL.

6,000,000 Shelby 

Clinton Street Bridge Replacement, City of Fort Wayne, IN .................................. 1,000,000 Bayh/Lugar 

Coal Creek Parkway Corridor Completion Project, WA ........................................... 1,000,000 Murray 

Coalfields Expressway, WV ..................................................................................... 5,000,000 Byrd 

Cold Storage Spur Line, IA ..................................................................................... 1,000,000 Harkin

College of Southern Idaho Student Safety Initiative, ID ....................................... 800,000 Craig/Crapo 

DelTrac Integrated Transportation Management System, DE ................................ 1,200,000 Biden/Carper 

Denali Commission, Alaska for transportation infrastructure projects throughout rural Alaska.10,000,000 Stevens 

Design, engineering, environmental assessment and initial construction of East 

Aztec Arterial Route, NM.

1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Dillerville Rail Yard Relocation, PA ........................................................................ 1,500,000 Specter/Casey 

East Brandon Bypass, MS ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 Lott 

East Carson Street Widening, PA ........................................................................... 1,500,000 Specter/Casey 

East Loop, TX ......................................................................................................... 600,000 Hutchison 

East Metropolitan Corridor, MS .............................................................................. 3,300,000 Cochran/Lott 
64 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

East Texas Higher Speed Rail Feasibility Study, TX .............................................. 650,000 Hutchison 

FM509 Extension, TX .............................................................................................. 1,000,000 Hutchison/Cornyn 

Friant Road Widening, Fresno County, CA ............................................................. 1,000,000 Feinstein 

Grand Avenue Underpass, Chicago, IL .................................................................. 2,000,000 Obama 

Granite Street Reconstruction Project, NH ............................................................. 1,500,000 Gregg 

Grant City Downtown Square Street Improvements, MO ....................................... 500,000 Bond 

Gwynns Falls Trail/CSX Bridge, MD ....................................................................... 500,000 Cardin 

Hanford Reach National Monument Transportation Improvements, WA ............... 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Heart of America Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, MO .................................................. 750,000 Bond 

Henderson Lake Mead Parkway, NV ....................................................................... 200,000 Reid 

High Priority Corridor 31 of the National Highway System in southwestern, 

PA.

1,000,000 Casey 

Highway 13 at Broadmoor Intersection in Springfield, MO ................................... 500,000 Bond 

Highway 13 Bypass, MO ........................................................................................ 3,000,000 Bond 

Highway 9 4-Lane Corridor, MS ............................................................................. 3,000,000 Cochran 

Hobbs East Bypass Project, NM ............................................................................. 1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

I 15/I 215 North to Apex Interchange, NV ............................................................. 1,300,000 Reid/Ensign 

I–15 Auxiliary Lanes, Kaysville to 31st Street, UT ................................................ 2,000,000 Bennett/Hatch 

I–25 and State Highway 16 Interchange—Fort Carson, CO ................................ 2,000,000 Allard/Salazar 

I–355 Corridor Improvement Project, IL ................................................................. 500,000 Durbin 

I–55/Gluckstadt Interchange Improvements, MS ................................................... 2,000,000 Lott/Cochran 

I–69, LA .................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 Landrieu/Vitter 

I–69, US–77 Upgrades from Harlingen to I–37, TX .............................................. 750,000 Hutchison 

I–70 Viaduct Realignment, Topeka, KS ................................................................. 500,000 Brownback 

I–81 Rebuild/Expansion, PA ................................................................................... 2,000,000 Specter/Casey 

I–84, Exit 29 (Franklin Road) Local Systems Improvement, ID ............................ 800,000 Craig/Crapo 

I–95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington Road, VA ...................... 3,000,000 Webb 

Icicle Station Project, Leavenworth, WA ................................................................. 300,000 Murray 

Improvements to Route 266 and Interchange with Interstate 44, MO ................. 3,000,000 Bond 

Interchange Construction at US–73 and 20th Street, Leavenworth, KS ............... 1,000,000 Brownback 

Intersection Rehabilitation and Improvements, US24 and Marlatt Avenue, Manhattan, KS.1,000,000 Brownback/Roberts 

Interstate 10 Service Road Corridor, Lake Charles, LA ......................................... 2,000,000 Landrieu/Vitter 

Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR ................................................ 4,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Interstate 68 Access Road—Monongalia County, WV ........................................... 2,300,000 Byrd 

Interstate 69, TN .................................................................................................... 3,000,000 Alexander 

Joe Dice Suspension Bridge, MO ............................................................................ 750,000 Bond 

Kalispell Bypass, MT .............................................................................................. 6,000,000 Tester/Baucus 

King Coal Highway, WV .......................................................................................... 5,000,000 Byrd 

Las Cruces Downtown Revitalization, NM .............................................................. 2,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman

Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND .......................................................................... 800,000 Conrad/Dorgan

Lewiston Partnership Project, ID ............................................................................ 400,000 Craig/Crapo

Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation Project, WA ....................................................... 1,500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, NH ........................................................... 2,500,000 Gregg 

Mahan Drive Phase II, Leon County, FL ................................................................. 1,000,000 Nelson, Bill 

Martin Bluff Road, MS ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 Lott 

Mountain Edge Parkway Environmental Assessment, Las Vegas, NV ................... 1,000,000 Reid 

New Alignment South Bridge, MO .......................................................................... 1,500,000 Bond 

North Main Street Streetscape Enhancements, CT ................................................ 350,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Northside Drive, Clinton, MS .................................................................................. 4,000,000 Cochran

Northwest Arkansas Western Beltway, AR ............................................................. 1,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Northwest Loop Access Road, Sandoval County, NM ............................................ 1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Paducah Waterfront Development Project, KY ....................................................... 4,000,000 McConnell 

Palm Bay Parkway Project, FL ............................................................................... 3,000,000 Nelson, Bill 

Paseo Street Corridor Improvements, MO .............................................................. 750,000 Bond 

Paw Paw Bends Trail, Morgan County, WV ........................................................... 1,000,000 Byrd 

Pedestrian Plaza improvements at the Connecticut Science Center in Hartford, 

CT.

1,000,000 Lieberman/Dodd 

Pinnacle Aeropark, Wayne County, MI .................................................................... 1,000,000 Stabenow/Levin

Pinon Hills Boulevard East and Animas River Bridge, NM ................................... 1,500,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Port Huron, NAFTA Corridor Congestion Mitigation Project, Phase I, MI ............... 1,000,000 Stabenow/Levin 

Port of Wilmington Rail Improvement Project, DE ................................................. 1,500,000 Carper/Biden 

Post Street Centennial Trail and Utility Bridge, WA .............................................. 2,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 
65 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Reading Lighting & Streetscape Enhancement Initiative, PA ............................... 250,000 Casey 

Realignment of Saddle Creek Road, NE ................................................................ 2,000,000 Nelson, Ben/Hagel

Reconstruction of Two Interchanges on I–235, Wichita, KS ................................. 1,000,000 Brownback 

Reconstruction of US–50 in Reno County, KS ....................................................... 1,500,000 Brownback 

Reconstruction of US50, Gray County, KS ............................................................. 500,000 Brownback 

Redevelopment of Front Street and Constitution Way in Hartford, CT ................. 2,000,000 Lieberman 

Reno Rail Access Corridor Enhancements, NV ...................................................... 500,000 Reid/Ensign 

Renovation of Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN ................................................. 500,000 Bayh/Lugar 

Revitalization and redevelopment of the Hamlet of Brewerton, NY ...................... 1,000,000 Schumer/Clinton 

River Tech Boulevard Road Construction, Moline, IL ............................................ 1,500,000 Durbin/Obama 

San Juan County Road 3900, NM .......................................................................... 1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

San Juan County Road CR 7500, NM .................................................................... 500,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

SD 11 and SD 42 in Sioux Falls, SD ..................................................................... 3,000,000 Johnson 

Shiloh Road Corridor, Billings, MT ......................................................................... 7,000,000 Baucus/Tester 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology connector road, SD ..................... 500,000 Johnson/Thune 

South Lake Union Streetcar Project Capital Improvements, WA ........................... 1,150,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Southeast Connector Extension from SE 6th Street to SE 14th Street, IA ........... 3,500,000 Harkin/Grassley 

Southwest Rochelle Truck Loop, Ogle County, IL ................................................... 150,000 Obama 

SR304/Bremerton Transportation Center, WA ........................................................ 250,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Star Landing Road Corridor, DeSoto County, MS .................................................. 2,400,000 Cochran/Lott 

State Route 437 By-Pass in Bedford County, TN .................................................. 1,000,000 Alexander 

Tacoma Rail Mountain Division Track Improvements, WA .................................... 1,100,000 Murray/Cantwell 

U.S. 2 Safety Improvements, WA ........................................................................... 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

U.S. 287 at Lamar, Colorado: Ports-to-Plains, CO ................................................ 2,000,000 Salazar/Allard 

U.S. 54 Corridor Expansion, MO ............................................................................. 1,000,000 Bond 

U.S. 60 Corridor Improvements, MO ...................................................................... 750,000 Bond 

U.S. 63 and Gans Road Overpass, MO .................................................................. 1,000,000 Bond 

U.S. Highway 49/Highway 7 Connector, MS .......................................................... 3,320,000 Cochran 

U.S. Route 30/Harrisburg Pike Gateway Interchange Project, PA ......................... 2,000,000 Specter 

Uptown St. Joseph Transportation District, MO ..................................................... 2,000,000 Bond 

Urban Collector Road, Jackson and Harrison Counties, MS .................................. 2,400,000 Cochran 

US 11 Corridor Improvements, St. Tammany Parish, LA ....................................... 3,000,000 Landrieu/Vitter 

US 54 Greensburg, KS ............................................................................................ 500,000 Brownback 

US Route 1/SR 123 Interchange Improvements, Prince William County, VA ........ 3,000,000 Webb 

Valley View Business Park Access Road, PA ......................................................... 1,000,000 Casey 

Vermont Downtown Streetscape & Sidewalk Improvements in Springfield, Derby 

Line, Bristol, Stamford, Franklin, VT.

1,000,000 Leahy 

Village Plaza Streets and Drainage, Village of Angel Fire, NM ............................ 200,000 Domenici 

Wadsworth Interchange/State Highway 128, CO ................................................... 1,000,000 Allard/Salazar 

West Lea Street Improvements, Carlsbad, NM ...................................................... 300,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

West Vancouver Freight Access Project, WA .......................................................... 2,000,000 Murray / Cantwell 

West Viginia Route 2 Improvements, WV .............................................................. 9,500,000 Byrd 

West Virginia Route 9, WV ..................................................................................... 10,000,000 Byrd 

Section 125 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements. 

Section 126 permits funds made available in a prior appropriations act for the construction of the North Shore Road in North 

Carolina to be available for an alternate purpose. Requested by 

Senator Alexander. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was 

established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106–159) in 

December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety re-
66 

sponsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

FMCSA’s mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle 

operation, and reduce truck and bus crashes. The agency also is 

charged with reducing fatalities associated with commercial motor 

vehicles through education, regulation, enforcement, research and 

innovative technology, thereby achieving a safer and more secure 

transportation environment. Additionally, FMCSA is responsible 

for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United 

States along its southern and northern borders comply with all 

Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations. 

Agency resources and activities are expected to contribute to 

safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety 

violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to 

commercial driver’s license testing, recordkeeping, and sanctions. 

To accomplish these activities, FMCSA is expected to work closely 

with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU] provides 

funding authorizations for FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. Under 

these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA’s expanded scope as 

authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new and enhanced security measures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a level of $531,469,553 for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This level is $3,469,553 

more than the level requested by the President and $10,967,553 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. It is also $3,469,553 

more than the level authorized in SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee is greatly concerned with the growing number of 

fatalities on our Nation’s highways. In April of this year, the Committee took testimony from the FMCSA Administrator on rising 

highway fatalities. The hearing was designed to assess the role of 

the Nation’s leading highway safety agencies in addressing and reversing the growing number of highway fatalities. While there was 

a slight decrease in large truck fatalities in 2005 after several 

years of increases, FMCSA has been unable for the last several 

years to achieve the dramatic decreases necessary to meet the large 

truck fatality targets articulated in the agency’s performance goals. 

The agency has acknowledged that it is struggling to achieve results. The agency’s budget documents for fiscal year 2008 concede 

that the most recent data available indicate that ‘‘FMCSA may 

have reached a maximum outcome potential with the current program activities and procedures that are in place.’’ The agency says 

that it is looking for ways to achieve better outcomes, and is undertaking an overhaul of its compliance and enforcement programs as 

part of its Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010 initiative. 

While supportive of this initiative, the Committee does not believe 

that the American people have to wait until 2010 to see real im-
67 

provements in motor carrier safety. Rather, FMCSA should be aggressively addressing the challenges that undermine its ability to 

meet its stated fatality reduction goals in the near term. 

Fatality Rate Calculation.—The Committee was disappointed to 

learn that the Department has abandoned its goal of achieving one 

fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [VMT] in fiscal year 

2008, delaying the goal instead until fiscal year 2011. Moreover, 

the Committee is concerned that, in weakening its goals, the Department is also changing how large truck fatality rates are calculated. In changing its methodology, FMCSA may be making it 

difficult to determine whether the agency is making real progress 

toward its now-delayed fatality goal. As such, the Committee directs FMCSA to continue to calculate fatality rates using truck 

miles traveled in addition to the other measures the agency may 

choose so that the Committee can evaluate accurately whether the 

agency is making real progress toward its goal for 2011. 

New Performance Measures.—While measuring FMCSA’s ability 

to save lives is an important performance indicator, the Committee 

also believes that this measure alone does not allow the Congress 

or the agency to measure the effectiveness of FMCSA’s programs 

in improving compliance with motor carrier safety regulations. 
68 

The charts above display the results of inspections conducted by 

Federal and State officials in 2006. The data show that over seventy percent of drivers and vehicles inspected have at least one violation. Even more troubling is that 22 percent, or more than 1 out 

of every 5, drivers or vehicles inspected were in such deficient condition that they were immediately ordered off the road. 

In testimony before the Committee, the Administrator agreed 

that this high out-of-service rate was unacceptable. However, he 

also noted that these inspections are targeting the riskiest vehicles 

and drivers. The Committee applauds the Administrator’s to use a 

data-driven system to most effectively target its efforts and resources on the riskiest carriers. But the Committee also expects 

that the Administrator will use his inspection and enforcement 

data as a tool to evaluate his success or failure in improving overall 

industry compliance with the agency’s safety regulations. Toward 

that end, the Committee requests FMCSA submit to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations 180 days after the enactment of this act a plan for the establishment and implementation 

of quantifiable measures of agency effectiveness that incorporate 

the agency’s enforcement and inspection data. This plan should set 

performance targets within reasonable timeframes for improved 

compliance and explain with specificity how the agency’s programs 

will bring about those improvements. FMCSA is then asked to display its progress toward these stated goals as part of its annual 

budget submissions to the Committee. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2007 ..................................................................................... $223,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 (limitation) ....................................................... 228,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 231,469,553 
69 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to support motor 

carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier 

safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety 

enforcement activities at the U.S./Mexico border to ensure that 

Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance with 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety 

education and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$231,469,553 for FMCSA’s Operations and Programs. The recommendation is $8,469,553 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $3,469,553 more than the budget request. This level is 

also $3,469,553 more than the authorized limitation. The Committee is providing FMCSA additional obligation authority to allow 

the agency to use unobligated balances in this account provided in 

previous years. 

The bill specifies that $7,550,000 for the research and technology 

program is available for obligation until September 30, 2010. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $174,628,553 for operating ex- penses. This level is $1,969,553 more than the President’s request 

and $23,521,553 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 

President’s budget requested over $7,000,000, which the Committee 

has provided, to pay for personnel compensation and benefits necessary to make adjustments in grade structure that had been improperly calculated in prior years. In addition, the Committee has 

provided an additional $1,969,553 that is to be used only to pay for 

the annualization of the 22 positions included in the fiscal year 

2007 budget in order to support SAFETEA–LU initiatives and for 

additional enforcement personnel. 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010.—The President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2008 includes a request of $5,600,000 for CSA 

2010, the agency’s initiative to overhaul and improve its oversight 

and enforcement programs. This funding is intended to continue 

FMCSA’s efforts to develop new systems and software, rulemakings 

and policies, and training. The agency also proposes to continue to 

engage the major industry stakeholders in the process by conducting public listening sessions leading up to an operational test 

of the CSA 2010 model in four States. 

FMCSA has told the Committee and the National Transportation 

Safety Board [NTSB] that this initiative should satisfy NTSB’s 

longstanding recommendation that FMCSA improve the safety of 

motor carrier operations by altering the safety fitness rating system in order to prevent unsafe drivers and vehicles from continuing 

to operate. This recommendation has been on NTSB’s ‘‘Most Wanted’’ list since 2000, and is classified by NTSB as having an ‘‘open- 
70 

unacceptable response’’ status. The Committee is concerned that 

FMCSA has had this recommendation for 7 years and has yet to 

take appropriate actions to address program deficiencies and satisfy the NTSB recommendation. This underscores the need to move 

with urgency to implement the necessary changes to improve 

FMCSA’s programs. 

For this reason, the Committee is concerned that the agency is 

not yet taking all the appropriate and expeditious steps necessary 

to ensure all the safety benefits promised by CSA 2010. For example, implementation of CSA 2010 will require the agency to conduct 

several rulemakings. Yet the agency is still developing regulatory 

text and no new rules to launch this initiative have been proposed. 

Given that the DOT IG has found that it takes FMCSA an average 

of 2.3 years to complete major rulemakings, the Committee is concerned with FMCSA’s ability to successfully implement this critical 

initiative by 2010. Moreover, the Committee believes that the agency should be implementing changes on an ongoing basis in order 

to make incremental safety improvements prior to 2010. Up to this 

point, the agency has offered limited information about when and 

how these safety benefits will be realized. 

The Committee has included all the funding requested in order 

to move the initiative forward. However, the Committee wants to 

ensure that the funding will achieve real benefits in motor carrier 

safety in the near term. Therefore, FMCSA is directed to submit 

a comprehensive plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for the implementation of the CSA 2010 initiative 90 

days after the enactment of this act. This plan must include milestones and dates for completion of critical tasks, which will allow 

the Committee to evaluate FMCSA’s progress toward full implementation of this initiative by 2010. In addition, the plan should 

detail what benefits will result from the funding provided in fiscal 

year 2008. Following the submission of the plan, FMCSA is directed to update the Committees every 6 months on the implementation of CSA 2010. These updates should include detailed information on policy changes being implemented or planned to improve 

the operations of FMCSA, both in the near and long term; the ability of the agency to meet its milestones on time; and how the agency is implementing policy changes in the field. Furthermore, the 

Committee directs GAO to monitor FMCSA’s progress in carrying 

out the implementation plan, and to brief the Committee regularly 

on its findings. 

Compliance Review Process.—The Compliance Review [CR] is a 

critical enforcement tool that FMCSA uses to rate and evaluate the 

adequacy of the operations and safety of the Nation’s motor carriers. During a hearing this year, the Committee examined a fatal 

accident that revealed some serious flaws with the compliance review process. The accident, which occurred on the Capital Beltway 

(I–495/I–95), involved a trucker who had accumulated traffic citations in seven States, and was driving on a suspended license at 

the time of the accident. The driver was in the employ of ‘‘BK 

Trucking’’, a registered motor carrier which had undergone a full 

scale compliance review by FMCSA a little more than 3 weeks 

prior to the accident. This review found a few problems with log 

books but otherwise found no violations that the agency described 
71 

as ‘‘critical’’ or ‘‘acute.’’ Immediately following the fatality, however, 

another compliance review was conducted on the same firm. That 

review found multiple violations and resulted in fines totaling 

$77,000. 

The Committee is deeply troubled that, despite the fact that this 

motor carrier was identified by FMCSA as being ‘‘high risk,’’ the 

carrier was able to verbally explain away discrepancies discovered 

by FMCSA’s investigator as part of the first compliance review. 

During the Committee’s hearing, the Administrator shared this 

concern and pledged to address the issues that were raised by this 

tragic incident. The Committee therefore directs FMCSA to report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days 

after the reporting of this bill on the results of the agency’s internal review of this incident. Moreover, the Committee also directs 

FMCSA to report on how these issues are being addressed as it relates to the compliance review process, as well as the training and 

diligence of its investigators. 

High Risk Carriers.—The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU], 

signed by the President in 2005, included a requirement that compliance reviews [CR] be completed on motor carriers that are determined to pose the highest safety risk based on FMCSA data. Specifically, it was required that reviews be conducted on motor carriers rated as category ‘‘A’’ or ‘‘B’’ or the highest priority carriers 

to inspect based on safety data, for 2 consecutive months. The 

Committee is concerned that FMCSA has not been able to meet 

this requirement. 

While part of the problem may be insufficient inspection resources, it is equally clear that part of the problem is insufficient 

training in the field regarding the necessity of prioritizing these 

high-risk motor carriers. 

In order to address the agency’s inability to satisfy its obligation, 

FMCSA issued a new policy in April 2007 to clarify how field staff 

should effectively prioritize the riskiest carriers for compliance reviews. The Committee hopes that this new policy will result in an 

improved ability to meet this critical safety requirement. In addition, the Committee has provided additional resources for FMCSA’s 

operations budget and directs that of this amount, $1,000,000 be 

used by FMCSA to ensure that the agency is conducting compliance reviews on high risk carriers as required by law. Furthermore, the agency is directed to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations quarterly updates on its ability to meet 

this requirement. 

Repeat Violators.—A system that seeks to attack the highest risk 

carriers must inevitably focus on those that continually flout safety 

violations—repeat offenders. The Committee was therefore concerned by a report by the Department of Transportation [DOT] Inspector General [IG], which found that FMCSA did not consistently 

use its authority to implement sanctions against repeat violators. 

FMCSA has committed to the DOT IG that it will strengthen its 

policies to ensure that repeat offenders are subject to the maximum 

fines. The Committee directs the DOT IG to report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the success of 
72 

FMCSA’s policies in satisfying this recommendation, as well as 

how these policies are being implemented in the field. 

ADA Compliance of Curbside Motor Coach Operators.—The Committee is greatly dismayed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s continuing failure to exercise the Department’s authority to deny operating authority to interstate bus companies 

that are unwilling or unable to comply to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. DOT’s regulations under 49 CFR 

Part 37, Subpart H requires accessibility to over-the-road buses for 

people with disabilities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected FMCSA’s assertion that it did not have the authority 

to deny bus operators registration on these grounds and remanded 

the case to FMCSA for further interpretation of the statutory language. In the many months that have passed since that decision, 

no action has been taken by FMCSA. The Committee expects 

FMCSA to take immediate action to implement the Court’s decision 

without further delay. That action should ensure that discrimination against people with disabilities precludes bus operators from 

registering as interstate motor carriers to the same extent to which 

other forms of discrimination and serious safety violations preclude 

such registration. The Committee further directs the Secretary of 

Transportation to provide a letter report to the Committee no later 

than 30 days following the reporting of this bill to explain how she 

and her Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator have implemented the Circuit Court decision and the Committee’s directive. 

PROGRAM EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $56,841,000 for FMCSA’s program 

expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows: 

2007 

enacted 

2008 

estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Research & Technology ............................................................ $10,296,000 $7,550,000 $7,550,000 

Information Management ......................................................... 43,175,000 33,329,000 34,329,000 

Regulatory Development .......................................................... 12,455,000 9,462,000 9,962,000 

Outreach and Education .......................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

CMV Operations Grants ........................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Regulatory and Standards Development.—The Committee has 

provided $9,962,000 for regulatory and standards development, 

which is $2,493,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$500,000 more than the President’s request. The Committee notes 

that the agency has a backlog of over 40 pending regulatory actions. Given the importance of these regulations, the Committee 

was troubled by the decrease in funding for this program. Therefore the Committee has provided additional funding to be used to 

support regulatory development. Within this allocation, the Committee has denied funding for the new activity of ‘‘organizational 

assessment’’, as it appears to be duplicative of the CSA 2010 initiative. While it is important to assess and improve organizational effectiveness, the Committee believes that given the agency’s tight 

budget, this funding is better spent in support of the program’s 

other activities, such as medical oversight improvement. 

Information Management.—FMCSA is approaching its enforcement mission using a data-driven approach to identify and target 
73 

the riskiest motor carriers. While the agency has made improvements in its data quality, the DOT IG has argued that FMCSA 

must make additional improvements in data quality in order to 

properly rank and target motor carriers for reviews and inspection. 

Therefore, the Committee is concerned by the large funding reduction proposed in the budget for the Information Management program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 for information management and directs FMCSA 

to use this funding exclusively to improve data quality and data access capabilities. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2007 .................................................................................................. $294,000,000 $294,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ............................................................................................... 300,000,000 300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 300,000,000 300,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants 

to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. 

Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both 

the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of 

entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver’s license 

[CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being 

issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor 

vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to 

identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

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

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$300,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended 

limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and the amount 

authorized under SAFETEA–LU. The Committee recommendation 

is $14,820,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. The 

Committee recommends a separate limitation for each grant pro-
74 

gram funded under this account with the following funding allocations: 

Amount 

Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] ....................................................................................... $202,000,000 

Commercial driver’s license and driver improvement program .................................................................... 25,000,000 

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

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

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

Safety Data Improvement .............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

CDLIS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8,000,000 

PRISM.—The performance and registration information system 

management [PRISM] grants program seeks to ensure that unsafe 

motor carriers cannot resume interstate operations after being ordered by FMCSA to cease operations. The Committee believes that 

this program can be an integral part of improving the safety of 

motor carriers operating on our Nation’s highways. However, the 

Committee is concerned that, despite the fact that FMCSA anticipates that nearly all of the States will have PRISM grant agreements in fiscal year 2008, FMCSA’s stated goal is that only 30 

States will actually use the tool to suspend, revoke, or deny license 

plates based on FMCSA prohibition on interstate operations. The 

Committee is concerned as to why this tool will not be used more 

fully and seeks a better understanding of the issues surrounding 

full implementation of this program. Therefore, the Committee directs GAO to evaluate the extent to which the program has enhanced the ability of both the States and FMCSA to identify unsafe 

motor carriers and take effective enforcement action; what opportunities exist to fully implement the program nationally; and what 

oversight FMCSA is providing to ensure that the program’s purpose is being achieved. 

Oversight of MCSAP.—The FMCSA relies on its State and local 

partners to assist the agency in the enforcement of motor carrier 

regulations. FMCSA anticipates that in fiscal year 2008, there will 

be approximately 2 million driver and vehicle inspections; 3,700 

compliance reviews; and 26,500 new entrant audits conducted by 

the States. FMCSA supports the efforts by providing grant money 

to the States. In order to receive this funding, each State must 

demonstrate that it has adequate motor carrier regulations and 

must submit a Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan [CVSP], which is 

reviewed and approved by FMCSA. The Committee notes that a 

GAO report issued in December 2005 questioned whether FMCSA 

was providing an adequate level of oversight to the MCSAP program. The Committee understands that FMCSA is responding to 

GAO’s recommendations. The Committee wants to ensure that this 

funding is being used to effectively reduce highway fatalities and 

improve the safety of our Nation’s highways, and looks forward to 

the GAO’s follow up report on this topic. 

The bill also rescinds $11,260,000 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 
75 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $32,187,720 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

The bill rescinds $5,212,858 in unobligated balances from 

amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations 

acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public 

Law 107–87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long 

haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] is 

responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government’s regulatory role in motor 

vehicle and highway safety began in September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1966 (codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code) and 

the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, 

United States Code). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and 

deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor 

vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle 

equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety research and development; and expand the National Driver Register. 

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to increase 

highway safety by providing for a coordinated national highway 

safety program through financial assistance to the States. 

In October 1966, these activities, originally under the jurisdiction 

of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the National 

Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate 

organizational entity in the Department. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 
76 

NHTSA’s mission was expanded in October 1972 with the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (now 

codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title 49, 

United States Code). This act as originally enacted, instructs the 

Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, and odometer regulations. Three 

major amendments to this act have been enacted: (1) a December 

1975 amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards; (2) an October 1984 

amendment directs the Secretary to require certain passenger 

motor vehicles and their major replacement parts to be marked 

with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3) an October 1992 

amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer automobile 

content labeling requirements. 

NHTSA’s current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of 

title 49, United States Code); (2) the Highway Safety Act (chapter 

4 of title 23, United States Code); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle VI of title 

49, United States Code); (4) the National Driver Register Act of 

1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]. 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for 

the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles 

and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, 

including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register, which was reauthorized by 

the National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States Code) 

to be carried out by the States and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, 

United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 

100–690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States Code) to make grants to States 

to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 

NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $835,406,000 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This funding is 

$2,406,000 more than the President’s request and $14,674,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2007 enacted 1 2008 estimate 

Operations and research ..................................................................... $228,982,430 $229,750,000 $232,156,000 

National Driver Register ...................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Highway traffic safety grants .............................................................. 587,750,000 599,250,000 599,250,000 
77 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 1 2008 estimate 

Total ........................................................................................ 820,732,430 833,000,000 835,406,000 

In August 2006, the latest data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS] was released by NHTSA. The data showed 

that in 2005 highway fatalities numbered 43,443. This represents 

the highest number of fatalities since 1990. Even more disconcerting than the raw number of fatalities was the fact that, for 

the first time in 10 years, the rate of fatalities as measured against 

100 million vehicles miles traveled [VMT] also increased. This 

should be viewed as a setback for the Department and for NHTSA. 

Despite these dire numbers, the President’s budget for fiscal year 

2008 offered no bold or innovative proposals to improve highway 

safety. Instead, the administration weakened its stated goal of 

achieving 1 fatality per 100 million VMT in 2008, and delayed it 

until 2011. While the Secretary has maintained the administration’s commitment to achieving this goal, this must be demonstrated with clearly articulated strategies that will enable the 

Department to meet this fatality goal in 2011. 

The chart below displays the targets and outcomes for fatalities 

per million VMT. Given the trends displayed and the aggressive 

goal for 1 fatality per 100 million VMT, the Committee is concerned that, absent new tools and approaches, the Department and 

the agency will once again fail to achieve this important goal in 

2011. 
78 

In testimony before the Committee, the Secretary pledged to personally go back and redouble efforts in order to work on these safety issues. It is critically important that this pledge is supported by 

demonstrated actions. NHTSA’s role in improving highway safety 

is crucial and the Committee expects the agency to provide the necessary leadership in developing new strategies that address the 

challenges in reducing the highway fatalities. 

As such, the Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 180 days after the 

enactment of this act on how it is redoubling its efforts, and how 

its programs will enable the Department to achieve the goal of 1 

fatality per 100 million VMT in 2011. This report should address 

both the behavioral and vehicle safety programs of the agency. 

Moreover, the report should demonstrate how the agency is acting 

expeditiously, and not merely repeat activities currently being undertaken. The Committee wants to see how the agency’s programs 

are going to result in reductions in the number of fatalities both 

in the near and long term. The Committee is especially interested 

in the agency’s work in the areas where FARS data indicate the 

agency is struggling to make gains, such as motorcycle and alcoholrelated fatalities. 

Highway fatalities account for over 90 percent of all transportation-related fatalities and it remains the leading cause of death 

and disability for Americans age 3 through 33. The States have an 

important role to play in successfully reducing the number of highway fatalities, but NHTSA must be a leader in this effort. The 
79 

agency must move with a sense of urgency and renewed commitment to finding innovative solutions—both through its behavioral 

and vehicle safety programs—to reverse this tragic trend of rising 

highway fatalities. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $228,982,430 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 229,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 232,156,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local government, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety 

programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and 

trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and 

bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, 

young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $232,156,000 for Operations and 

Research. This level is $3,174,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level and $2,406,000 more than the budget request. The 

funding provided supports the behavioral and vehicle safety programs of NHTSA, $124,406,000 is derived from the General Fund 

and $107,750,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, as authorized in SAFETEA–LU. 

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

Amount 

Safety Performance .............................................................................................................................................. $13,518,000 

Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................................... 18,277,000 

Highway Safety Programs .................................................................................................................................... 43,715,000 

Research and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 66,178,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 90,468,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $90,468,000 for administrative and 

related operating expenses associated with carrying out the agency’s Behavioral Research program as authorized by section 403 of 

title 23, U.S.C. and with Vehicle Research program as authorized 

by chapter 301 of title 49, and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 

U.S.C. 

Budget Documentation.—The Committee has directed NHTSA to 

submit a report on the agency’s plans for helping the Department 

achieve the goal of 1 fatality per 100 million VMT by 2011, including new initiatives and proposals that will enable the agency to 
80 

meet that goal. NHTSA should integrate detailed plans set out in 

this report into its fiscal year 2009 performance budget. 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE

New Car Assessment Program [NCAP].—NCAP is a tool used by 

NHTSA to inform consumers about the comparative safety of cars, 

and has encouraged manufacturers to make safer cars. While the 

program is critical to improving the safety of vehicles, the Government Accountability Office observed in a report to the Committee 

in 2005 that the program needs to change to maintain its relevance. The Committee was therefore pleased by the Secretary’s 

announcement in January that the agency plans to improve vehicle 

crash tests and the five star rating program in order to evolve with 

the times and technology. The Committee expects that NHTSA will 

include detailed information on the modifications the agency is 

planning to NCAP, how these changes will improve the program, 

and the timeline for implementation of these changes as part of the 

agency’s 2009 performance budget. 

Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.—The TREAD Act included a 

requirement that the Secretary of Transportation issue a rule mandating that new motor vehicles have a warning system to alert operators when a tire is significantly under-inflated. In April 2005, 

NHTSA fulfilled the requirement of the TREAD Act by publishing 

a final rule that requires Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems 

[TPMS] to be installed in every new vehicle by model year 2006. 

NHTSA notes the potential of TPMS in preventing injury, saving 

lives and improving fuel economy. However, the Committee is concerned that these impacts may be undermined if consumers do not 

fully understand the technology. Therefore, the Committee provides 

NHTSA with $750,000 and directs NHTSA to carry out a consumer 

education campaign that would assist drivers in understanding 

new TPMS technologies, their purpose, and the valuable safety information that they provide. Requested by Senators Levin and 

Stabenow. 

LATCH.—In order to standardize the way that child restraints 

are attached to vehicles without using seat belts, NHTSA promulgated a rule that became effective in September 2002. As a result, 

the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children [LATCH] installation 

system was created and has been in the marketplace since the regulation was issued. However, a recent report by NHTSA demonstrated that the current technology is confusing for parents. The 

Committee understands that NHTSA is taking measures to address this issue both by examining vehicle standards and through 

a public education campaign. The Committee applauds the agency’s 

effort to move to address this important safety issue. The Committee further requests that the agency include information on the 

activities and actions planned to address the problems with the 

LATCH system in the agency’s fiscal year 2009 budget. 

SAFETY ASSURANCE

The Committee includes $18,277,000 for NHTSA’s enforcement 

activities consistent with the budget request. This funding supports 

the agency’s efforts to ensure the safety of vehicles on our roads by 

enforcing compliance with safety standards and investigating safe-
81 

ty-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 

This program also supports the enforcement of Federal odometer 

laws and encourages the enforcement of State odometer laws. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM

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

Amount 

Impaired Driving .................................................................................................................................................. $11,400,000 

Drug Impaired Driving ......................................................................................................................................... 1,488,000 

Pedestrians/Bicycle/Pupil Transportation ............................................................................................................. 1,665,000 

Older Driver Safety ............................................................................................................................................... 1,700,000 

Motorcycle Safety ................................................................................................................................................. 992,000 

National Occupant Protection .............................................................................................................................. 11,132,000 

Enforcement and Justice Services ....................................................................................................................... 2,699,000 

Emergency Medical Services ................................................................................................................................ 2,320,000 

Enhance 9–1–1 Act Implementation and NEMSIS .............................................................................................. 2,250,000 

Driver Licensing ................................................................................................................................................... 1,002,000 

Highway Safety Research 1 .................................................................................................................................. 11,346,000 

Emerging Traffic Safety Issues ............................................................................................................................ 588,000 

International Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 100,000 

1 This amount includes $4,967,000 from the Highway Traffic Grants Administrative Expenses 

Seat Belt Usage.—Seat belts have proven to be one of the most 

effective tools in reducing highway fatalities. NHTSA estimates 

that seat belts saved 15,632 lives in 2005 and that an additional 

5,328 lives could have been saved if motor vehicle occupants had 

been wearing seat belts. Strong seat belt laws coupled with strong 

enforcement has proven effective in improving seat belt usage and 

saving lives. However, today only 26 States and the District of Columbia have primary seat belt laws. The enactment of primary seat 

belt laws has been on the National Transportation Safety Board’s 

‘‘Most Wanted’’ list for States since 1998. Under a provision in 

SAFETEA–LU, the Secretary and the Administrator have the ability to go to States to work for the implementation of primary seat 

belt laws. In testimony before the Committee, the Secretary stated 

that she had personally gone out to States to encourage the enactment of primary seat belt laws. 

The Committee believes that it is critical that the Secretary and 

the Administrator be engaged in this effort and directs the agency 

to submit quarterly reports on the actions taken by the agency to 

work towards the implementation of primary seat belt laws in all 

States. 

Impaired Driving.—The Committee has provided $11,400,000 for the impaired driving program. This level is $194,000 more than the 

President’s request and $100,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. The Committee has provided this additional funding 

based on the FARS data that showed an increase in the number 

of alcohol-related fatalities. In May of this year, NHTSA released 

preliminary Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems [FARS] data for 

2006. These projections for highway fatalities in 2006 revealed 

some disturbing trends in the area of alcohol-related fatalities. 

After fatalities rose by 4 percent above the 2004 level, projections 

for 2006 indicate that the number will grow by an additional 2.4 

percent 2005—this would represent the highest number of alcoholrelated fatalities since 1992. In light of these numbers, the Com-
82 

mittee cannot support reducing funding for this important safety 

program, as requested by the agency. 

The Committee was pleased that in testimony before the Committee, the NHTSA Administrator spoke of the agency’s renewed 

commitment to reducing alcohol-related fatalities. The Committee 

supports NHTSA’s active leadership in the Campaign to Eliminate 

Drunk Driving, which has brought together law enforcement, policymakers, MADD, auto manufacturers and responsible distilled 

spirits companies with the goal of eliminating alcohol-impaired 

driving. The campaign is based on the principal that a combination 

of tough laws, aggressive enforcement, increased deployment of 

interlock technologies and the continuation of the national media 

campaign will save lives. The Committee encourages NHTSA’s involvement in the development of voluntary vehicle-based technologies, as supported under the Campaign, which will accurately 

detect if a driver is impaired and prevent that driver from operating the vehicle. The Committee looks forward to seeing the recommendations of the newly-established Blue Ribbon Panel for the 

Development of Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology. 

Motorcycle Safety.—Early 2006 data indicate that for the ninth 

consecutive year, motorcycle fatalities are projected to increase. 

This represents an increase of 125 percent since 1997. It is clear 

from the data that the old solutions to this problem are not working and that significant efforts are needed to make real strides in 

reducing motorcycle fatalities. The Committee has included the 

President’s request for additional funding for this program and includes a level of $992,000 for the motorcycle safety program, which 

is $192,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

In testimony before the Committee the NHTSA Administrator 

discussed the importance of helmet use and training. Supporting 

this idea, in February, the Secretary encouraged manufacturers to 

provide free or discounted rider training or helmets with the purchase of motorcycles sold in the United States. While the Committee agrees that helmet use and training are important, the 

Committee questions if improving access to training and helmets 

will be sufficient to achieve the dramatic reductions in motorcycle 

fatalities that have proven so challenging for the agency. 

In order to more fully understand the impact of the agency’s efforts to reduce the number of motorcycle fatalities, the Committee 

directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 90 days after the enactment of this act, 

outlining specific activities that the agency will undertake in order 

to change this pattern of increasing motorcycle fatalities. This report should include how the activities funded by the agency are resulting in fewer motorcycle fatalities. As part of this report, the 

agency should include the specific activities that will be undertaken as a result of the increased funding provided by the Committee. Further, NHTSA should include in this report how manufacturers are responding to the Secretary’s request to provide free 

or discounted helmets and training, and what impact this is having 

on helmet use and fatality reductions. 

The Committee also notes that the NTSB held a public forum on 

motorcycle safety in September 2006. The Committee encourages 

the agency to look at recommendations that may result from this 
83 

forum and work to implement these strategies and recommendations where possible. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs.—The Committee is concerned 

by the reduction in funding for the pedestrian, bicycle and pupil 

transportation program. FARS data from 2005 showed an increase 

in the number of pedestrian fatalities, and projections for 2006 indicate further increases in bicycle fatalities. The Committee has included a funding level of $1,665,000. This level is $212,000 more 

than the request and consistent with the level provided in fiscal 

year 2007. 

National EMS Information System.—The Committee continues to 

support efforts to develop a national database for the collection of 

EMS data. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National Emergency Medical Services Information System [NEMSIS], 

which is $750,000 more than the requested level. This funding is 

for the implementation of the database by the National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis [NCSA] and for the continued support of 

the NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center. The Committee believes 

that a comprehensive EMS system is critical in providing prompt, 

quality care to automobile crash victims. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Crash Avoidance and Human-Vehicle Performance.—The Committee applauds NHTSA’s announcement that it will require all vehicles to have electronic stability control, which is expected to save 

up to 10,000 lives annually. In addition, the NHTSA Administrator 

testified before the Committee about the importance of researching 

and deploying crash avoidance technologies. The Committee supports these efforts and believes it is critical to continue research 

into other promising technologies that will improve the safety of vehicles. As part of the agency’s fiscal year 2009 budget, the Committee directs NHTSA to provide detailed information on the crash 

avoidance technologies that are being researched and tested. This 

should include identifications of which technologies show the most 

promise of saving a substantial number of lives. In addition, the 

agency should submit proposed timelines for research completion 

and the possible deployment of promising technologies. In developing these timeframes, the Committee encourages the agency to 

be mindful that as technology continues to evolve, it is critical that 

the agency move at a pace that will allow the agency to be the 

leader in developing and promoting safety-related technologies. 

Plastic and Composite Vehicles.—The Committee recognizes the 

development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the automotive industry and the important role these technologies play in 

improving automobile performance. The Committee recommends an 

additional $500,000 to continue development of a roadmap for 

Lightweight Plastic and Composite Intensive Vehicles [PCIV] research to examine possible safety benefits. The program will help 

facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the Department of Energy and industry stakeholders for the development of 

safety-centered approaches for future lightweight automotive design. Requested by Senator Murray. 

Vehicle Backover Avoidance.—As part of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill, the Committee directed NHTSA to conduct a 
84 

study of vehicle backover avoidance technology. That report was finalized in November 2006. While NHTSA identified some challenges with the current technologies, the agency also identified 

areas for further action. NHTSA noted that its future plans included: conducting additional human factors research; developing 

test procedures for evaluating system effectiveness, improving 

backover data collection methods; and working with industry on 

continued research and development on backover technologies. The 

Committee supports NHTSA’s efforts to continue to pursue this 

safety issue, and looks forward to the recommendations that may 

result from its continued examination of this issue. 

Motorcycle Fatality Rate Calculation.—In addition to changing its 

fatality rate goals, the Department has changed the way that motorcycle fatality rates are being calculated. The budget proposes to 

shift from measuring motorcycle accidents against VMT, to measuring fatalities against the number of motorcycle registrations. 

However, in changing the calculation, it becomes difficult to evaluate the real progress that NHTSA is making in meeting its goal of 

reducing fatalities. Therefore, while NHTSA may begin to use this 

new measure, in this time of transition, NHTSA is directed to continue including fatality rates based on VMT in order to enable the 

Committee to have an accurate comparative measure of its 

progress. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract 

authorization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2007 ...................................................................................................................... $4,000,000 $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ................................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding to implement and operate the 

Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety 

by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in communicating 

effectively and efficiently with other States to identify drivers 

whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic 

offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol or other 

drugs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred in carryout 

provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The recommended 

liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the budget estimate and 

is equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 
85 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended limitation is the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract author- ization 

Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriations, 2007 .......................................................................................................... $587,750,000 $587,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 599,250,000 599,250,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 599,250,000 599,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

SAFETEA–LU reauthorizes three State grant programs: highway 

safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and alcoholimpaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and authorizes 

for the first time an additional five State programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety information systems improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and 

child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety 

grants. 

SAFETEA–LU established a new safety belt performance incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United States 

Code; SAFETEA–LU also established a new State traffic safety information system improvement program incentive grants program 

under section 408 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA–LU 

amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive 

grant program authorized by section 410 of title 23, United States 

Code; SAFETEA–LU establishes a new program to administer at 

least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns 

each year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; 

and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. 

Motorcyclist Safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU established 

a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle safety training 

and motorcyclist awareness programs. 

Child Safety.—Section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU established a new 

incentive grant program these grants may be used only for child 

safety seat and child restraint programs. 

Grant Administrative Expenses.—Section 2001(a)(11) of 

SAFETEA–LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses related to the administration of the grants programs. 
86 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of 

contract authorization of $599,250,000 for payment on obligations 

incurred in carryout provision of the highway traffic safety grant 

programs. The Committee recommendation is consistent with the 

amount of contract authorization for highway traffic safety grant 

programs under SAFETEA–LU. The recommended liquidating cash 

appropriation is equal to the budget estimate and $11,500,000 

more than fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$599,250,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded 

under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal to the 

budget estimate and $11,500,000 more than fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The Committee continues to recommend prohibiting the use of 

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling 

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. 

The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations 

for administrative expenses and for each grant program as follows: 

Amount 

Highway Safety Programs (section 402) ............................................................................................................. $225,000,000 

Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405) .......................................................................................... 25,000 000 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program (section 410) ......................................... 131,000,000 

High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009) .......................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Motorcyclist Safety (section 2010) ...................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 

State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements (408) ............................................................................ 34,500,000 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive (section 2011) ............................................................... 6,000,000 

Safety Belt Performance Grants (406) ................................................................................................................ 124,500,000 

Administrative Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 18,250,000 

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program.—In response 

to a request from the Committee, the Department of Transportation Inspector General conducted an audit of NHTSA’s Impaired 

Driving grant program. The audit found that NHTSA needed to develop better performance measures in order to determine the effectiveness of the Federal funding spent on these initiatives. The 

Committee believes that it is critical that NHTSA work with States 

to develop and monitor implementation strategies for its impaired 

driving program. With alcohol-related fatalities increasing, it is 

critical that the agency fully understand effective strategies for reducing impaired driving fatalities, as well as the challenges that 

States face so that the agency can make improvements to the program. As such, the Committee encourages NHTSA to move as 

quickly as possibly to fulfill the recommendations of the DOT IG. 

The Committee also requests that the DOT IG continue to monitor 

NHTSA’s progress in meeting these recommendations and brief the 

Committee on its findings. 

High Visibility Enforcement.—The Committee continues to support the efforts of NHTSA to combine law enforcement and paid ad-
87 

vertisement to increase seat belt use and decrease impaired driving. The agency conducted three high visibility campaigns with the 

funding provided in 2006. Over the Memorial Day holiday, the 

agency conducted its ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ high visibility enforcement 

mobilization aimed at increasing seat belt usage. The Committee 

was also encouraged by NHTSA’s increased efforts on impaired 

driving in 2006. The agency conducted two mobilizations around 

impaired driving. The first mobilization, conducted over Labor Day, 

included the rollout of the agency’s new impaired driving slogan 

‘‘Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.’’ In addition, the 

first holiday impaired-driving mobilization occurred in December. 

The Committee expects the agency to continue its efforts with 

these important mobilizations. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 140 allows $130,000 of obligation authority for section 

402 of title 23 U.S.C. to be available to pay for travel and expenses 

for State management reviews and highway safety staff core competency development training. 

Section 141 includes a provision that rescinds $12,197,113.60 in 

unobligated balances from amounts made available under the 

heading ‘‘Operations and Research’’ in prior appropriations acts. 

Section 142 includes a provision that rescinds $119,914.61 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the heading 

‘‘National Driver Register’’ in prior appropriations acts. 

Section 143 includes a provision that rescinds $10,528,958 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the heading 

‘‘Highway Traffic Safety Grants’’ in prior appropriations acts. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating 

administration within the Department of Transportation on April 

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the 

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground 

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska 

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. The Federal Railroad 

Administration is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical 

infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $150,271,312 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 148,472,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,186,000 
88 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail 

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $151,186,000 for Safety and Oper- ations for fiscal year 2008, which is $2,714,000 more than the 

budget request and $914,688 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that, $12,268,890 remains available until expended. 

The Committee is disappointed that the administration did not 

put a higher priority on funding railroad safety and requested 

fewer resources for this account for 2008. The Committee believes 

that funding the Safety and Operations account at the requested 

level would prevent rail safety inspectors from being able to conduct their work and travel to railroad sites across the country. 

Travel for the purposes of inspector training would also be undermined. Furthermore, according to the budget justifications submitted by the agency, the budget request would force the FRA to 

delay filling certain important staff vacancies for a period of 6 

months. The Committee believes such budgeting gimmicks are irresponsible. The Committee is happy to debate the administration as 

to whether or not these positions are important to the agency’s mission. But it cannot find any logic behind a policy of deliberately 

keeping the positions vacant for a temporary period of time, as is 

requested in the budget. The Committee has made the following 

adjustments to the budget request. 

Amount 

Reject delay in replacing vacancies .................................................................................................................... ∂$629,000 

Reject travel reductions, including inspector travel ........................................................................................... ∂1,785,000 

Evaluation of penalty effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... ∂300,000 

Evaluation of Penalty Effectiveness.—The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the FRA to hire an independent consultant to complete an impartial evaluation of the effectiveness of the how the agency uses its authority to impose penalties in enforcing its regulations and improving railroad safety. 

Imposing penalties is a central enforcement mechanism of the FRA. 

However, as noted in recent reports by the Government Accountability Office, the FRA has not systematically studied the effectiveness of how the agency uses this authority. 

As illustrated in chart below, the FRA has processed an average 

of well over 5,000 violations every year for the past 5 years. The 

agency responds to most of these violations by imposing a financial 

penalty on the responsible party. After imposing the penalty, the 

FRA often enters negotiations over the level of the penalty with the 

responsible party, and the agency is willing to lower the penalty in 

exchange for commitments to make safety improvements. Over the 

2002–2005 period, the FRA imposed an average of $17,434,755 in 

penalties. The agency then collected an average of $10,247,048 over 

the same period, a difference of $7,187,707. (The FRA has not completed negotiations over penalties assessed in 2006.) The Com-
89 

mittee respects the priority that the FRA places on obtaining these 

commitments to improve safety, but the Committee questions if 

this strategy is the most effective way to improve the overall safety 

of the railroad industry over the long term. 

The evaluation funded in the bill should include, but not be limited to, an examination of the frequency with which FRA imposes 

penalties, the level of penalties that FRA initially imposes, and the 

use of negotiations to lower penalty levels in exchange for commitments to improve safety. The evaluation should also include an assessment of whether individual carrier commitments actually 

translated into measurable safety improvements, an assessment of 

the FRA’s ability to determine whether such measurable improvements were made, and an assessment as to how the FRA allows 

a railroad’s performance in this area to influence the agency’s discounting of penalties in the future. The Committee directs the FRA 

to report within 90 days on its schedule for the completion of the 

evaluation, and to submit a comprehensive report within 18 

months on the findings of the evaluation. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $34,524,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 32,250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Railroad Research and Development provides for research in the 

development of safety and performance standards for railroads and 

the evaluation of their role in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 
90 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,250,000 for 

railroad research and development, which is $4,000,000 more than 

the budget request and $1,726,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. 

Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends: 

$3,000,000 for the Next Generation Rail Tank Car [NGRTC] program. This program will provide for additional baseline testing of 

existing rail tank cars and the evaluation of new tank car design 

prototypes. This research is intended to assist in the development 

of a new Federal tank car standard in the near term (as requested 

by Senator Stabenow); 

$1,000,000 for the demonstration and deployment of positive 

train control technology along the Alaska Railroad (as requested by 

Senator Stevens); 

$250,000 for the Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia 

University to develop manufactured modules using innovative manufacturing techniques, advanced blast resistant materials and 

structural systems, and embedded modern sensors (as requested by 

Senator Byrd); and 

$750,000 for Marshall University, in cooperation with the University of Nebraska, to develop a new track stability technology 

using the actual rail lines in the States as the calibration test beds 

(as requested by Senator Byrd). 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... $100,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The President’s budget request includes $100,000,000 for a new 

capital grant program to encourage State participation in passenger rail service. Under the proposed program, a State or States 

would apply to the Federal Railroad Administration for grants for 

up to 50 percent of the cost of capital investments necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail service. The Committee has 

not provided funding for this program, choosing instead to direct 

$100,000,000 to a new ‘‘Capital Assistance to States Intercity Passenger Rail Service’’ program. This alternative program will fund 

similar activities as the President’s program but on a reimbursable 

basis with slightly modified criteria. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥$9,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The President’s budget request includes a rescission of 

$9,000,000 from funds that had been previously appropriated for 

the renovation of the James A. Farley Post Office building as a 

train station and commercial center. The Committee has rejected 

the proposed rescission as extensive planning is currently underway to address the station capacity challenges facing Amtrak and 
91 

the regional commuter railroads serving midtown Manhattan. The 

appropriated funding in question may prove to be a necessary component of any Federal contribution toward this regional solution. 

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES—INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL

SERVICE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $100,000,000 

The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for capital assistance 

to States to promote new intercity passenger rail service as well as 

improve existing passenger rail corridors. This is a new program 

that was not funded in fiscal year 2007. This program shares many 

of the objectives of the Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program included in the President’s budget for 2008. As in the case of the 

President’s proposed program, States may apply for grants of up to 

50 percent of the cost of capital investments necessary to support 

improved intercity passenger rail service. 

In allocating grant funding under this program, the Federal Railroad Administrator shall give priority to projects to improve rail 

services that require either little or no Federal operating subsidy, 

projects where States have made a financial commitment to improve the safety of highway/rail grade crossings over which the 

passenger service operates, and projects that involve a commitment 

by freight railroads of financial resources commensurate with the 

benefit expected to their operations. The Committee recognizes that 

their may be improvements funded under this program for which 

the benefits to passenger rail operations far exceed any benefit expected to freight operations. The Administrator is expected to encourage financial contributions from freight railroads only to the 

extent that freight operations benefit from the proposed improvements. Funds made available under this program shall be subject 

to the same terms and conditions relating to labor standards as 

capital funds made available to Amtrak. 

The Committee believes that this program holds promise to alleviate some of the on-time performance problems plaguing Amtrak 

long-distance and State-supported trains. As such, the proposed 

program incorporates the identical incentive included in the administration’s proposed program; namely, that priority be given to 

projects that involve a commitment by host freight railroads to an 

enforceable on-time performance of passenger trains of 80 percent 

or greater. Also, as in the case of the administration’s proposed 

program, States applying for assistance must first include intercity 

passenger rail service as an integral part of their statewide transportation planning activities and any capital improvement for 

which assistance is sought must first appear on the requesting 

State’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan [STIP]. Unlike 

the administration’s proposed program, the Capital Grant program 

will make funding available to States for capital projects only on 

a reimbursable basis. 

THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates 

intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Co-
92 

lumbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities 

for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the 

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–518) in response to private carriers’ inability to profitably operate intercity 

passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common 

carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right 

to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost. 

For fiscal year 2008, the President’s budget request seeks a total of $800,000,000 in direct support for Amtrak, including 

$300,000,000 in efficiency incentive grants and $500,000,000 in 

capital grants. The amount requested is $493,550,000 less than the 

comparable 2007 level—a reduction of almost 40 percent. As in 

years past, the Committee cannot seriously consider the administration’s budget request as a credible proposal since it will do nothing other than bankrupt the railroad. The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General [OIG] performs quarterly audits 

on Amtrak’s finances and reports the results of those audits to the 

Committee. During hearings on Amtrak’s finances this year, witnesses from the OIG testified that they saw no way that Amtrak 

could remain viable if funded at the President’s requested level. 

While the administration has testified to their strong commitment 

to ‘‘reform’’ Amtrak, the fact remains that no such ‘‘reforms’’, merited or not, can occur if the railroad goes into receivership and is 

required to terminate all intercity passenger rail service. As such, 

for fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided $1,370,000,000 for 

Amtrak’s operating and capital needs. The amount provided is 

$76,450,000 more than the comparable level for fiscal year 2007. 

OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $490,050,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 485,000,000 

1 Included as ‘‘efficiency incentive grants’’ 

The Committee provides $485,000,000 for operating grants for 

Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account for the 

difference between Amtrak’s self-generated operating revenues and 

its total operating costs. The amount provided is $185,000,000 

more than the President’s request which sought such operating assistance through an efficiency incentive grant program. The 

amount provided is $5,050,000 less than the comparable amount 

provided for fiscal year 2007. 

On May 22, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation reported a bill reauthorizing Amtrak with 

broad bipartisan support. Included within that legislation are numerous reform proposals for the railroad and its operations. Pending the enactment of such a final comprehensive Amtrak reform 

bill, the Committee has included most of the legislative provisions 

from prior appropriations acts governing the availability of Amtrak 

operating subsidies through a route-by-route grant making process 

approved by the Secretary of Transportation. 

Amtrak Efficiency Initiatives/Labor Contracts.—The Committee 

is greatly disturbed by Amtrak’s failure to reach collective bargaining agreements with the majority of Amtrak’s workforce. Most 
93 

of Amtrak’s employees have now gone for more than 7 years without a general wage increase. As such, compensation for a great 

many Amtrak craftspeople has fallen further and further behind 

that of craftspeople conducting identical work for freight and commuter railroads. Testimony before the Committee indicates that, in 

some cases, the extent of this pay differential has reached or exceeded 20 percent. The Amtrak President testified to the Committee that these ‘‘big gaps’’ have made it increasingly difficult to 

retain the skilled workers the railroad requires. Moreover, these 

pay gaps have resulted in employee morale reaching an all-time 

low. The willingness of Amtrak employees to cooperate on important efficiency initiatives has deteriorated badly. 

Amtrak’s failure to reach a labor settlement is not a result of inadequate Federal funding. To the contrary, salary and benefit costs 

are derived from Amtrak’s operating budget which is financed 

mostly by self-generated revenues. For each of the last several 

years, the Committee has provided Amtrak with operating support 

at or near the levels sought by Amtrak’s Board of Directors. Any 

differences between the larger overall funding requests submitted 

by Amtrak’s Board and actual Federal appropriations have come in 

the area of the railroad’s capital budget. 

When it comes to revenue being available for operating costs, 

Amtrak’s self-generated operating revenues have actually exceeded 

initial company estimates recently due to better-than-expected ticket sales across the entirety of Amtrak’s national rail network. 

While pleased with Amtrak’s improved financial performance, the 

Committee is concerned that these revenues might be directed toward increased capital spending rather than be held in reserve to 

ensure that all the funds needed for new collective bargaining 

agreements are immediately available to the railroad. The following chart prepared by the DOT Inspector General displays the 

railroads better-than-expected operating performance for the current fiscal year: 
94 

Amtrak’s inability to reach a labor agreement is all the more disturbing in the light of two recent decisions by Amtrak management 

and its Board of Directors. In late May 2007, Amtrak management 

sought to institute an across-the-board 10 percent salary increase 

for Amtrak managers in many specified locations. This came as 

most of Amtrak’s agreement employees entered their eighth year 

without a general wage increase. Amtrak management hastily cancelled its plan once it came to the attention of the public, the Congress and Amtrak’s wage workforce. 

In late 2006, the decision was made to provide a lavish ‘‘golden 

parachute’’ to Amtrak’s outgoing interim CEO. Compensation for 

the interim CEO for calendar year 2006, in combination with an 

additional recalculated 2006 severance payment that was provided 

in January of 2007, totaled $478,432.96—an amount that exceeded 

the salary of the President of the United States by just less than 

20 percent. The Committee notes that, under the provisions of section 24315 of title 49, United States Code, Amtrak is required to 

report to the House of Representatives and the Senate ‘‘relevant information about a decision to pay an officer of Amtrak more than 

the rate for level I of the Executive Schedule . . . ’’ It appears 

that the entire compensation package of the departed interim CEO 

may not have been fully reported consistent with this statute. The 

Committee does not believe that compensation of this amount can 

possibly be warranted, especially given the overall environment of 

pay austerity at the railroad. In this regard, the Committee requests that the Amtrak Board of Directors send a letter to the 

Committee detailing the circumstances that justified this level of 

compensation to the individual in question. In addition, the Committee requests that the Amtrak Inspector General investigate 

whether and why this level of compensation was or was not appropriately reported to the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

as required by law. 

Amtrak management is currently considering a series of strategic 

initiatives to further improve Amtrak’s financial performance and 

reduce the railroad’s need for Federal operating subsidies. Almost 

all of these initiatives will require the cooperation of Amtrak labor. 

Many of the Amtrak managers who will be charged with executing 

these initiatives have admitted that, with the current fractious environment at Amtrak, these cost-saving initiatives will have to 

await a labor compensation settlement with the workforce. As such, 

both in the interest of fairness and in the interest of moving forward with Amtrak’s reform agenda, the Committee directs Amtrak 

to immediately move to finalize appropriate settlements with its 

workforce. 

Taxpayer-Subsidized Offshoring of Amtrak Jobs.—As part of the 

development of the appropriations bill providing funding for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007, the Committee included a provision that 

would immediately terminate Federal funding for Amtrak should 

the corporation contract for services to be performed overseas that 

had been provided domestically on or before July 1, 2006. The necessity for this provision was brought about by the Amtrak Board 

of Directors giving consideration to moving some of Amtrak’s reservation customer service functions overseas. In the wake of the 

Committee’s response last year, Amtrak abandoned its plan. The 
95 

Committee still considers it unconscionable that the Nation’s taxpayer-subsidized national railroad might consider moving jobs overseas. And while the Committee is not aware of any similar proposals being considered by the Amtrak Board, the Committee has 

included a permanent provision terminating Federal subsidies in 

the wake of any such action (Sec. 150). 

Food and Beverage Service.—The Committee continues to be supportive of Amtrak’s efforts to reduce its operating loses stemming 

from food and beverage service. The forecasted loss for 2007 is expected to be almost 25 percent below the actual loss experienced 

in 2005. The Committee expects Amtrak to continue to make efforts to reduce this loss while simultaneously working to improve 

customer satisfaction. The DOT Inspector General is encouraged to 

continue to monitor these efforts. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD

PASSENGER CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $772,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 500,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 885,000,000 

The Committee recommends $885,000,000 for capital and debt 

service grants for Amtrak. Of this amount, not more than 

$285,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The 

amount provided is $112,800,000 more than the comparable 2007 

appropriation and $385,000,000 more than the President’s request. 

Amtrak capital expenses are dedicated to maintaining Amtrak’s 

capital plant in a state of good repair, keeping aging equipment in 

safe working order, and overhauling rolling stock to minimize 

equipment failures. The lion’s share of Amtrak’s annual capital 

grant goes toward maintaining the Northeast Corridor due to the 

railroad’s sole ownership of the majority of that corridor. As in the 

case of Amtrak operating expenses, the Committee has included 

most of the legislative provisions from prior appropriations acts 

governing the availability of Amtrak capital grants through a 

route-by-route grant making process approved by the Secretary of 

Transportation. Such language may become unnecessary should 

the Congress enact a comprehensive Amtrak reform bill through 

the normal legislative process. 

On-Time Performance of Amtrak Trains.—The Committee continues to be deeply disappointed with the dismal on-time performance of Amtrak trains outside the Northeast Corridor. The most 

up-to-date data available indicates that less than 40 percent of Amtrak’s long-distance trains arrive at their destination on time. For 

the month of May 2007, certain routes such as the Palmetto, Silver 

Star and Capitol Limited services operating over CSX track could 

barely deliver half their trains within 2 hours of their expected arrival time. Fewer than half of the California Zephyr and Sunset 

Limited trains operating over Union Pacific track arrived at their 

destination within 4 hours of their expected arrival time. It is an 

astonishing testament to the interest of the American public in 

using Amtrak service that the railroad has been able to boost both 

passenger counts and passenger-related revenues for the long distance network beyond budgeted expectations given the low likeli-
96 

hood that these passengers will be able to arrive at their destination on time. 

While the administration has continually signaled its preference 

for State-supported passenger rail services over those that require 

a Federal operating subsidy, it is noteworthy that the on-time performance of many State-supported services is no better and, in 

many instances, is far worse than Amtrak’s subsidized long-distance services. During testimony before the Committee, the Administrator held out the State of North Carolina as an ideal example 

of State investment in support of intercity rail service. Yet, the 

State-supported Carolinian service had a pathetic 11.3 percent ontime performance for the month of May and has been unable to arrive on time even one-third of the time for the year to date. It is 

hard to see how the administration can succeed in enticing evergreater State participation in intercity passenger service without 

the dramatic change in operating practices and capital investment 

that will allow such services to enjoy a reasonable frequency of ontime arrivals. 

The chart below displays the on-time performance of Amtrak’s 

trains by route; for the month of May and for the year to date. 

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORT—MAY 2007 AND YEAR TO DATE 

[In percent] 

Service May 2007 Fiscal year 2007 

YTD 

Amtrak System ........................................................................................................................ 68.9 68.9 

Amtrak Premium ..................................................................................................................... 87.8 88.3 

Acela Express ................................................................................................................. 87.8 88.2 

Metroliner 1 ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 97.5 

Amtrak Corridor ....................................................................................................................... 82.4 80.0 

Keystone ......................................................................................................................... 92.3 82.7 

Regional ......................................................................................................................... 77.7 78.7 

Short Distance ......................................................................................................................... 65.9 66.3 

Capitols .......................................................................................................................... 76.3 71.7 

Carolinian ....................................................................................................................... 11.3 31.1 

Cascades ........................................................................................................................ 62.9 58.5 

Downeaster ..................................................................................................................... 54.5 85.6 

Empire Corridor .............................................................................................................. 65.7 67.2 

Heartland Flyer ............................................................................................................... 27.4 33.5 

Hiawatha ........................................................................................................................ 86.6 87.0 

Hoosier State .................................................................................................................. 25.7 36.8 

Illinois ............................................................................................................................. 60.0 54.9 

Michigan ......................................................................................................................... 21.9 32.4 

Missouri .......................................................................................................................... 12.1 32.0 

Pacific Surfliner ............................................................................................................. 78.4 76.1 

Pennsylvanian ................................................................................................................ 59.7 68.5 

Piedmont ........................................................................................................................ 80.0 72.9 

San Joaquins .................................................................................................................. 76.1 68.3 

Long Distance ......................................................................................................................... 37.5 41.0 

Auto Train ....................................................................................................................... 56.5 52.1 

California Zephyr ............................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Capitol Limited ............................................................................................................... 11.3 15.3 

Cardinal .......................................................................................................................... 22.2 38.5 

City of New Orleans ....................................................................................................... 91.9 86.8 

Coast Starlight ............................................................................................................... 37.1 20.4 

Crescent ......................................................................................................................... 35.5 43.4 

Empire Builder ............................................................................................................... 87.1 75.2 

Lake Shore Ltd ............................................................................................................... 29.0 29.0 

Palmetto ......................................................................................................................... 11.3 28.2 

Silver Meteor .................................................................................................................. 30.6 45.4 

Silver Star ...................................................................................................................... 12.9 27.2 
97 

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORT—MAY 2007 AND YEAR TO DATE—Continued 

[In percent] 

Service May 2007 Fiscal year 2007 

YTD 

Southwest Chief ............................................................................................................. 38.7 66.0 

Sunset Limited ............................................................................................................... 11.1 18.3 

Texas Eagle .................................................................................................................... 22.6 32.5 

1 On October 30, 2006 the last Metroliner frequency was replaced with Acela Express service. 

The Committee appreciates the testimony of the Federal Railroad 

Administrator in which he acknowledged the on-time performance 

of Amtrak trains as ‘‘one of my top priorities outside of safety 

itself.’’ The Committee, however, also believes that, in order to 

have a meaningful impact on this worsening problem, the Administrator must redouble his efforts. The Federal Railroad Administrator must play a central role in tackling this problem, both in his 

capacity as the Nation’s regulator of the freight rail industry and 

his role as the Secretary’s representative to the Amtrak Board of 

Directors. More than 76 percent of the delays endured by Amtrak’s 

long distance trains are a result of problems associated with the 

host freight railroad. The causes are primarily interference with active freight traffic. In addition, deferred maintenance on the part 

of host railroads is commonly resulting in FRA-imposed slow orders 

that necessarily delay Amtrak trains and freight trains alike. Signal delays are also a contributing factor. 

Outside of the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains are dispatched 

by the freight railroads over whose territory they operate. Legal requirements related to this dispatching activity were stipulated in 

the Rail Passenger Service Act at the time that the Amtrak network was statutorily established to take the money-losing passenger rail lines off the balance sheets of the Nation’s freight railroads. Specifically, under section 24308(c) of title 49, United States 

Code, Amtrak trains have ‘‘preference over freight transportation 

in using a rail line, junction, or crossing’’ unless the Secretary of 

Transportation provides a specific exemption to this law. 

Given the dismal on-time performance of long-distance Amtrak 

trains, the Committee seriously questions whether the above-cited 

provision of the law is being adhered to. Indeed, when the Committee inquired of the Administrator whether the freight railroads 

were uniformly complying with both the letter and spirit of this 

law, the Administrator testified that ‘‘I don’t think there’s uniformity in terms of the importance of this among the class 1 railroads.’’ The Administrator’s observation appears to be borne out in 

part by the vastly differing on-time performance of Amtrak trains 

depending on the host railroad over which they are operating. The 

following displays the comparative minutes of delay per 10,000 Amtrak train-miles for the six major freight railroads over which Amtrak operates. The figures displayed are for the last three fiscal 

years and fiscal year 2007 to date. They speak only to the minutes 

of delay for which the host railroad is determined to be at fault. 

For the purpose of these figures, trains that arrive onto a freight 

railroad’s territory hours later than scheduled are only considered 

to be delayed if they encounter further lengthy delays over that 

railroad’s territory. 
98 

In order to address this chronic problem, the Committee has included a provision (sec. 151) requiring the FRA Administrator to 

develop a comprehensive action plan to address the problem of ontime performance with quantifiable and measurable milestones and 

submit that plan to the Committee not later than January 1, 2008. 

The Administrator will then provide quarterly updates to the Committee. Those quarterly reports should include regularly updated 

quantifiable measures of progress opposite the Administrator’s preestablished goals for those measures. The Administrator is also requested to include Amtrak’s most recent on-time performance report with each of his quarterly submissions and any other on-time 

performance data that he thinks best illuminates conditions for the 

preceding quarter. The Committee also requests, as it did last year, 

that the DOT Inspector General conduct an audit of railroad dispatching practices to ascertain the extent of industry compliance 

with section 24308(c) of title 49. This audit should also evaluate 

Amtrak’s operating practices and any hindrances they may present 

to the ability of freight railroads to dispatch Amtrak trains in a 

fashion to allow for on-time arrivals. 

The Committee has sought to give the Administrator additional 

tools to address this problem by fully funding a $100,000,000 grant 

program that is very similar in purpose and structure to the new 

Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program included in his budget request. In funding this new initiative, the Committee recognizes 

that capital improvements and not just dispatching and operational 

changes are essential to improving the on-time performance of Amtrak trains. Indeed, the Committee notes that it is hoped that certain capital improvement currently being funded by the Union Pacific Railroad will prompt such a dramatic improvement in the ontime performance of Amtrak’s Coast Starlight service as to allow 
99 

Amtrak to ‘‘re-launch’’ the service with substantially improved ridership and revenues in 2008. 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

[RRIF].—The RRIF program was established by Public Law 109– 

178 to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local 

governments, government-sponsored entities, or railroads. Credit 

assistance under the program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is 

required to implement the program because a non-Federal partner 

may contribute the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform 

Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. The Committee 

continues bill language specifying that no new direct loans or loan 

guarantee commitments may be made using Federal funds for the 

payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2008. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 150 prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation from being available if the Corporation contracts for 

services at or from any location outside of the United States which 

were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within the United States. 

Section 151 requires the Federal Railroad Administrator to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on Amtrak on-time performance. 

Section 152 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of nominal value for use in certain outreach activities. 

Section 153 clarifies the governance of contracts between the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the State of Maryland. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan 

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the 

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as 

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and 

methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban 

and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in 

both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize the productivity 

and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance 

to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems. 

The current authorization for transit programs is contained in 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA–LU]. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the administration’s request excluding rescissions: 
100 

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2007 enacted 2008 estimate 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... $85,000,000 $89,300,000 $88,795,000 

Formula and bus grants ...................................................................... 7,262,775,000 7,871,895,000 7,872,893,000 

Research and University Research Centers ........................................ 61,000,000 61,000,000 65,500,000 

Capital investment grants ................................................................... 1,566,000,000 1,399,818,000 1,566,000,000 

Transit assistance under Public Law 110–28 .................................... 35,000,000 .......................... ..........................

Total ........................................................................................ 9,009,775,000 9,422,013,000 9,593,188,000 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $85,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 89,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 88,795,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and 

other administrative expenses necessary to carry out its mission to 

promote public transportation systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $88,795,000 for the agency’s salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level 

of funding is $505,000 less than the budget request and $3,795,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The specific levels of funding recommended by the Committee are 

as follows: 

Committee 

recommendation 

Office of the Administrator ................................................................................................................................ $910,239 

Office of Administration ..................................................................................................................................... 6,353,739 

Office of Chief Counsel ...................................................................................................................................... 4,545,039 

Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ...................................................................................... 1,480,289 

Office of Program Management ......................................................................................................................... 8,741,339 

Office of Budget and Policy ............................................................................................................................... 10,857,698 

Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation ......................................................................................... 4,943,589 

Office of Civil Rights ......................................................................................................................................... 3,234,489 

Office of Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 4,458,289 

Regional offices ................................................................................................................................................. 22,551,290 

Central Account .................................................................................................................................................. 20,719,000 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 88,795,000 

The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing 

the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial appropriation from 

this account must be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the usual reprogramming process. 

Budget Justifications.—The FTA is directed to submit its fiscal 

year 2009 congressional justification for administrative expenses by 

office, with material detailing salaries and expenses, staffing increases, and programmatic initiatives for each office. The Committee has included this same direction in its reports for the past 

several years and is disappointed that the FTA decided not to include this informatiion in its fiscal year 2008 justifications. 
101 

Project Management Oversight Activities.—The Committee directs 

FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each 

project with a full funding grant agreement. 

To further support oversight activities, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] $2,000,000 for costs associated with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed 

guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds 

available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several 

years, the OIG has provided critical oversight of a number transit 

projects and FTA activities, which the Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will 

continue such activities in fiscal year 2008. 

Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].—TEA–21, as amended, 

requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 60 days 

before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy 

of the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly 

and total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated 

for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2008; (4) a detailed 

analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; 

(5) an evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the 

applicant fully assessed all the viable alternatives; (6) a financial 

analysis of the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the 

project, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and 

which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and 

finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private 

sector financing; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates 

the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with 

the project. 

The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving 

schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any 

budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the 

project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement. 

The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly 

new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update 

should include FTA’s plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full 

funding grant agreement. In addition, FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in the new starts process is 

given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or 

final design. 
102 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Trust fund 

Appropriations, 2007 ........................................................................................................................................ $7,262,775,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 .................................................................................................................................... 7,871,895,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 7,872,893,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Formula and Bus Grants account includes funding for the 

following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals 

and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for non-urbanized 

areas; job access and reverse commute grants; new freedom grants; 

growing States and high density States grants; bus and bus facility 

grants; rail modernization grants; alternatives analysis; alternative 

transportation in parks and public lands; and the national transit 

database. In addition, set-asides from formula funds are directed to 

a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans 

with Disabilities Act accessibility costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit 

formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2008 to 

$7,872,893,000. The recommendation is $998,000 more than the 

budget request and $610,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level. The Committee also recommends a rescission of 

$28,660,920 of unobligated balances. 

The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for 

project oversight in current law instead of providing an increase for 

program management of formula funds, as requested. The following 

table displays the distribution of obligation limitation among the 

program categories of formula and bus grants: 

DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA AND BUS 

GRANTS 

Program Category Amount 

Urbanized Area Formula 1 .............................................................................................................................. $4,280,315,210 

Over-the-road Bus Program ........................................................................................................................... 8,300,000 

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................ 127,000,000 

Nonurbanized Area Formula 1 ......................................................................................................................... 506,527,790 

Bus and Bus Facility (includes clean fuels) ................................................................................................. 976,750,000 

Fixed Guideway Modernization ....................................................................................................................... 1,570,000,000 

Job Access and Reverse Commute ................................................................................................................ 156,000,000 

New Freedom .................................................................................................................................................. 87,500,000 

National Transit Database ............................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

Planning Programs ......................................................................................................................................... 107,000,000 

Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands ................................................................................. 25,000,000 

1 Includes funding for Growing States and High Density States under section 49 U.S.C. 5340. 
103 

The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of 

funds for several of the major program categories in the formula 

and bus grants account (these distributions are calculated using 

the formulas set in SAFETEA–LU, the most recent authorization 

law for transit programs): 
104 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE) 

State Section 5307 and 5340 Urbanized Area Section 5311 and 5340 Non-urbanized Area Section 5310 Special Needs for Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Job Access and Reverse Commute New Freedom State Total 

Alabama ........................................................................................................................ 18,967,743 12,505,050 2,204,213 2,703,106 1,434,821 37,814,933 Alaska ............................................................................................................................ 23,855,214 5,721,809 289,439 234,562 116,702 30,217,726 American Samoa ........................................................................................................... .............................. 214,635 64,387 92,906 19,371 391,299 Arizona ........................................................................................................................... 59,724,230 8,929,442 2,303,932 2,991,377 1,527,802 75,476,783 Arkansas ........................................................................................................................ 9,415,565 9,546,294 1,415,478 1,589,549 813,858 22,780,744 California ....................................................................................................................... 691,715,537 21,543,724 13,479,312 22,127,365 10,852,719 759,718,657 Colorado ......................................................................................................................... 59,294,399 7,863,905 1,601,075 1,888,599 1,187,207 71,835,185 Connecticut .................................................................................................................... 70,081,682 2,565,590 1,556,343 1,273,061 1,174,200 76,650,876 Delaware ........................................................................................................................ 11,342,311 1,194,470 450,152 298,359 231,376 13,516,668 District of Columbia ...................................................................................................... 79,177,371 .............................. 387,470 428,660 259,823 80,253,324 Florida ............................................................................................................................ 208,396,143 12,951,167 8,596,136 9,374,538 5,818,487 245,136,471 Georgia .......................................................................................................................... 77,274,081 16,164,765 3,220,644 4,212,324 2,629,438 103,501,252 Guam ............................................................................................................................. .............................. 580,149 170,961 93,031 57,482 901,623 Hawaii ............................................................................................................................ 28,578,443 1,862,059 625,787 515,987 325,082 31,907,358 Idaho .............................................................................................................................. 6,829,596 5,505,962 596,724 711,187 344,775 13,988,244 Illinois ............................................................................................................................ 253,306,256 13,392,178 4,975,686 5,700,444 3,858,608 281,233,172 Indiana .......................................................................................................................... 42,740,207 12,833,559 2,615,787 2,601,117 1,746,554 62,537,224 Iowa ............................................................................................................................... 16,059,951 9,556,364 1,345,585 1,169,311 741,492 28,872,703 Kansas ........................................................................................................................... 11,890,843 8,852,889 1,205,523 1,048,633 643,371 23,641,259 Kentucky ........................................................................................................................ 20,710,073 12,110,611 2,031,527 2,084,502 996,040 37,932,753 Louisiana ....................................................................................................................... 34,079,812 9,718,875 2,022,563 3,265,467 1,432,996 50,519,713 Maine ............................................................................................................................. 4,750,881 5,149,622 706,988 570,830 330,824 11,509,145 Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 109,118,829 4,724,691 2,150,809 2,005,658 1,674,867 119,674,854 Massachusetts ............................................................................................................... 181,024,866 3,285,706 2,858,085 2,628,832 2,083,996 191,881,485 Michigan ........................................................................................................................ 78,385,418 16,374,623 4,137,957 4,498,354 3,095,926 106,492,278 Minnesota ...................................................................................................................... 53,536,767 12,034,418 1,894,856 1,598,713 1,067,134 70,131,888 Mississippi ..................................................................................................................... 5,954,416 10,918,097 1,419,541 1,647,623 764,714 20,704,391 Missouri ......................................................................................................................... 43,556,459 13,072,913 2,497,833 2,524,683 1,482,137 63,134,025 Montana ......................................................................................................................... 3,060,474 7,098,096 495,063 515,765 241,364 11,410,762 N. Mariana Islands ........................................................................................................ 755,630 33,042 65,684 142,384 62,035 1,058,775 Nebraska ........................................................................................................................ 9,557,161 6,190,959 797,441 634,866 349,932 17,530,359 Nevada ........................................................................................................................... 28,399,764 4,645,850 976,323 969,332 591,966 35,583,235 New Hampshire ............................................................................................................. 6,160,135 3,321,519 599,696 398,402 388,728 10,868,480 New Jersey ..................................................................................................................... 309,561,264 3,076,698 3,637,272 3,209,208 2,726,446 322,210,888 
105 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................... 10,834,647 7,735,130 881,152 1,237,431 463,775 21,152,135 New York ........................................................................................................................ 669,306,206 16,557,275 8,633,556 11,033,899 6,204,230 711,735,166 North Carolina ............................................................................................................... 49,145,533 20,776,159 3,602,972 3,793,177 2,384,389 79,702,230 North Dakota ................................................................................................................. 3,828,958 3,747,619 389,871 329,393 164,778 8,460,619 Ohio ............................................................................................................................... 101,748,647 18,857,576 4,840,115 5,002,399 3,066,599 133,515,336 Oklahoma ....................................................................................................................... 15,521,624 10,655,874 1,670,084 1,838,017 874,177 30,559,776 Oregon ........................................................................................................................... 43,285,334 9,221,238 1,547,597 1,659,383 848,530 56,562,082 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................. 172,007,072 19,101,673 5,714,682 5,678,285 3,789,620 206,291,332 Puerto Rico .................................................................................................................... 53,407,758 1,328,071 1,942,919 7,497,702 1,487,375 65,663,825 Rhode Island ................................................................................................................. 20,047,844 552,195 607,042 527,782 324,383 22,059,246 South Carolina ............................................................................................................... 17,453,605 10,443,148 1,919,464 2,116,457 1,209,118 33,141,792 South Dakota ................................................................................................................. 2,897,309 4,634,250 430,630 353,508 185,724 8,501,421 Tennessee ...................................................................................................................... 34,500,192 13,315,850 2,677,558 3,018,780 1,655,401 55,167,781 Texas .............................................................................................................................. 227,866,301 31,856,422 7,996,679 14,044,741 6,293,740 288,057,883 Utah ............................................................................................................................... 34,521,429 4,540,441 791,467 1,006,569 478,077 41,337,983 Vermont ......................................................................................................................... 1,634,892 2,489,667 366,627 211,242 133,277 4,835,705 Virgin Islands ................................................................................................................ 913,853 .............................. 161,754 93,402 38,338 1,207,347 Virginia .......................................................................................................................... 66,365,010 11,756,780 2,824,264 2,886,350 2,000,997 85,833,401 Washington .................................................................................................................... 114,811,537 9,017,146 2,401,029 2,803,102 1,752,413 130,785,227 West Virginia ................................................................................................................. 6,275,737 6,351,174 1,065,301 1,197,152 595,122 15,484,486 Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................... 45,711,829 12,715,465 2,192,062 2,133,756 1,490,682 64,243,794 Wyoming ........................................................................................................................ 1,637,049 4,384,906 311,903 228,738 111,982 6,674,578 Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... 4,250,983,887 483,577,790 126,365,000 154,440,000 86,625,000 5,101,991,677 Oversight ....................................................................................................................... 29,331,323 2,190,000 635,000 1,560,000 875,000 34,591,323 Total ............................................................................................................................... 4,280,315,210 485,767,790 127,000,000 156,000,000 87,500,000 5,136,583,000 Tribal Transit Program .................................................................................................. .............................. 12,000,000 .............................. .............................. .............................. 12,000,000 RTAP .............................................................................................................................. .............................. 8,760,000 .............................. .............................. .............................. 8,760,000 Grand Total .................................................................................................................... 4,280,315,210 506,527,790 127,000,000 156,000,000 87,500,000 5,157,343,000 
106 

Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.—There have been occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of capital investment funds for longer than the original 3-year availability. The Committee, however, has extended funding for many of 

these projects for more than 1 fiscal year, in an effort to give transit agencies and FTA the opportunity to spend these funds. The 

Committee strongly urges FTA to obligate the grants before the 

commencement of the fiscal year 2008 calendar, as the Committee 

will not look favorably upon any further requests for an extension 

of funds past 1 fiscal year. Three, even four, fiscal years is more 

than an adequate amount of time for project sponsors to obligate 

the discretionary grants, except in the most unusual of circumstances. Transit agencies are urged not to seek discretionary 

funding when the work cannot be completed in a 3-year timeframe. 

In addition, by October 30, 2007, FTA should submit a report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing 

which of these projects have not obligated the funds, including an 

explanation of why this could not be achieved. 

The availability of these particular funds is extended for 1 additional year, absent further congressional direction. The Committee 

directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided in fiscal year 2005 

for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Alaska—Alaska Mental Health Trust bus program 

Alaska—Native Medical Center intermodal bus/parking facility 

Alaska—Copper River Transit Program 

Alaska—Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility 

Alabama—Birmingham Intermodal Facility 

Alabama—Jacksonville State University buses 

Alabama—Vans, CASA of Marshall County 

Arkansas—CATA bus replacement 

Colorado—Statewide buses and bus facilities 

Connecticut—Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center 

Hawaii—Rural bus program 

Hawaii—Pahoa/Hilo Bus routes 

Illinois—Bus facilities for Bloomington, Macomb, Peoria, and 

Rock Island 

Illinois—Downstate Illinois replacement buses 

Illinois—Champaign Day Care Center Park-n-Ride 

Illinois—City of Chicago’s Free Trolley System 

Louisiana—Statewide buses and bus facilities 

Massachusetts—Springfield Union Station Intermodal facility 

Maryland—Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion 

Maryland—Statewide buses and bus facilities 

Michigan—Allegan County Transportation 

Missouri—Statewide buss and bus facilities 

Missouri—Southern Missouri buses and bus facilities 

Mississippi—City of Jackson 

Mississippi—Harrison County HOV/Bus rapid transit Canal 

Road Intermodal Connector 

Mississippi—Mississippi Valley State University mass transit 

program expansion 

Montana—Billings public bus and medical transfer facility 

New Mexico—West Side transit facility 

New York—Rochester Central Bus Terminal 
107 

New York—Renaissance Square 

Pennsylvania—Ardmore transit center 

Pennsylvania—Union/Snyder Transportation Alliance, Union 

County 

Tennessee—Statewide buses and bus facilities 

Tennessee—Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility 

Texas—Waco Transit Alternative Fueled bus purchase 

Texas—Denton Downtown multimodal transit facility 

Texas—Laredo Bus Hub and Maintenance Facility 

Texas—Bryan/College Station Bus Replacement program 

Texas—Corpus Christi buses and bus facilities 

Texas—Capitol Metro buses and bus facilities 

Texas—Brazos Transit District passenger shelter program 

Texas—The Woodlands Capital Cost of Contracting Program 

Texas—Capital Metro North Operating Facility 

Texas—CNG bus replacement 

Texas—Bryan Intermodal Transit Terminal with parking 

Texas—El Paso buses 

Virginia—Hampton Roads Transit Maintenance Facilities 

Virginia—James City County natural gas buses 

Washington—King County Metro, King county Airfield Transfer 

Area 

Washington—Community Transit Bus and Van Replacement 

Washington—Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Transportation 

Project. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

fiscal year 2004 and previous acts for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Alabama—Birmingham Transit Corridor 

Alaska—Sawmill Creek Intermodal Facility 

Connecticut—Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center 

Iowa—UNI Multimodal Project (2005) 

Massachusetts—Springfield Union Station Intermodal facility 

Mississippi—Intermodal Facility JIA 

Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh Water Taxi 

South Dakota—Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe public buses and bus 

facilities 

Vermont—Brattleboro Multimodal 

Vermont—Burlington Transit Facilities 

Washington—Grant Transit Authority bus facility. 

Illinois Statewide Buses.—The Committee provides $7,000,000 to 

the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] for section 5309 

Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee expects IDOT to 

provide at least $3,500,000 for Downstate Illinois replacement 

buses in Bloomington, Champaign-Urbana, Danville, Decatur, Peoria, Pekin, Quincy, River Valley, Rockford, Rock Island, Springfield, 

Madison County, Rides MTD, South Central MTD, Macomb and for 

Pinecrest Community in Mount Morris, IL. Further, the Committee 

expects IDOT to provide appropriate funds for bus facilities in 

Bloomington, Galesburg, River Valley Metro in Kankakee, 

Macomb, Peoria, and Rock Island, including $250,000 for the 

Macomb maintenance facility and $250,000 for the Kankakee’s 

River Valley Metro operations facility. Requested by Senator Durbin. 
108 

Glenmont Metrorail Parking Garage Expansion, Maryland.— Funds made available for Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion, Maryland in the fiscal year 2005 section 5309 bus and bus 

facilities program shall be made available for Montgomery County, 

Maryland, to purchase four small buses to provide a commuter 

shuttle from the Norbeck Park and Ride Lot to the Glenmont station when construction of the new garage at Glenmont begins. 

These buses will operate on restructured Ride On routes. Requested by Senators Mikulski and Cardin. 

Springfield Union Station Intermodal Facility, Massachusetts.— The Committee continues to be supportive of the construction of a 

new, affordable, intermodal facility in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts. However, the Committee notes that considerable funds 

already appropriated for this project from as far back as 2002 remain unobligated. Still other funds provided for the project in authorization acts also remain unobligated. The Committee is encouraged by signs that the State and local leadership has sought to 

jump start the process toward finalizing a new design for this facility that can be accomplished within the funds provided. The Committee asks that the Federal Transit Administration to continue to 

work with local leaders to expedite this process so that all appropriated funds can be obligated promptly. 

West Virginia Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.—Consistent 

with the provisions of section 3044 of SAFETEA–LU, the bill includes a total of $5,000,000 for bus and bus facilities within the 

State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2007. 

Metra.—The Committee understands that Metra and the Regional Transportation Authority [RTA] are confined by State law to 

operate in the six county metropolitan Chicago area. However, due 

to high population growth rates in the outer collar counties of 

Northeastern Illinois, and the serious need for reliable transit, the 

Committee recommends that the State of Illinois amend its RTA 

Act to incorporate these high growth counties—Boone, DeKalb, 

Kankakee, Kendall, and Winnebago—that include large metropolitan areas such as Rockford into its area of operation so that Metra 

can expand into these areas. The Committee is aware of the recent 

feasibility study and alternatives analysis conducted for Metra 

service extension to Boon/Winnebago Counties and supports this 

initiative. Requested by Senator Durbin. 

Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority.—The Committee 

recognizes the creation of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit 

Authority as a means for uniting and addressing collective transit 

needs in seven counties in West-Central Florida, and encourages 

its members to work expeditiously to identify next steps, long-term 

plans, and future initiatives to advance public transit in the Tampa 

Bay area. Requested by Senator Nelson of Florida. 

Hybrid Bus Cost Share.—The Committee has not included a provision to allow FTA to provide grants for 100 percent of the net 

capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus as proposed in the budget. The Committee has 

stressed the importance of hybrid technology buses in the past and 

remains committed to seeing hybrid technology proliferate throughout the Nation’s transit systems. However, the Committee believes 

that waiving the required match would result in less hybrid buses 
109 

being purchased by transit properties, not more. The Committee 

strongly believes that local share requirements are the best deal for 

taxpayers when it comes to stretching increasingly scarce Federal 

resources. 

Within the funding available to the bus and bus facilities program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and 

activities: 

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

1st District Bus Replacement and Facilities, MI .................................................... $6,000,000 Levin/Stabenow 

Acquisition of MARTA Clean Fuel Buses, GA ........................................................... 4,000,000 Chambliss/Isakson

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

Albuquerque Transit Facility Rehabilitation, NM ..................................................... 850,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Altoona, Pennsylvania Intermodal Transportation Center, PA ................................. 500,000 Casey 

Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE ............................................. 1,500,000 Carper/Biden 

BART Intermodal Station Infrastructure Improvements to Improve Bus Safety and 

Access, CA.

1,000,000 Feinstein 

Ben Franklin Transit, Fleet Expansion and Modernization, WA ............................... 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Bennington Multi-Modal Facility, VT ........................................................................ 500,000 Sanders 

Bi-County Transit Center, MD .................................................................................. 1,000,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT .................................................... 6,000,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Bus and Bus Facilities, City of Roswell, NM ........................................................... 400,000 Bingaman 

Bus and Bus Facilities, Grant County, NM .............................................................. 1,500,000 Bingaman 

Bus and Bus Facilities, MT ...................................................................................... 1,000,000 Baucus/Tester 

Bus Replacement for Rural Community Transportation of St. Johnsbury, VT ........ 500,000 Sanders 

Bus Shuttle Project for Seniors, Irvington, NJ ......................................................... 500,000 Lautenberg/Menendez 

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX ...................................... 520,000 Cornyn/Hutchison 

CCTA Buses, Facilities and Equipment, VT ............................................................. 4,000,000 Leahy/Sanders 

Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), Bus Acquisition, FL ..... 1,589,833 Martinez 

Central Maryland Transit Operations Facility, MD ................................................... 1,000,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

City of Mobile’s Transit System, AL ......................................................................... 2,000,000 Shelby 

City of Moultrie Intermodal Facility, Moultrie, GA ................................................... 500,000 Chambliss 

City of Oxford Transit, MS ........................................................................................ 500,000 Cochran 

City of Poughkeepsie Transit Hub, NY ..................................................................... 1,000,000 Schumer/Clinton 

City Utilities of Springfield Intermodal Transfer Facility, MO ................................. 2,000,000 Bond 

Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................... 280,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Clare Country Transit Corporation/Harrison Airport Facility, MI .............................. 750,000 Levin/Stabenow 

Coast Transit Authority Bus and Bus Facilities, MS ............................................... 4,000,000 Cochran 

Colorado Transit Coalition—Statewide Bus & Bus Facilities, CO .......................... 6,000,000 Allard/Salazar 

Columbia County Public Transportation Vehicle Replacement, WA ........................ 120,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Commonwealth Avenue Green Line Station, MA ...................................................... 1,000,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Community Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ......................................................... 1,500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Coralville Intermodal Facility, IA .............................................................................. 1,000,000 Harkin/Grassley 

CSKT Reservation Transportation Program, MT ....................................................... 350,000 Tester/Baucus 

C–TRAN Vehicle Replacement, WA ........................................................................... 700,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Culver City Multi-Modal Light Rail Station, CA ....................................................... 1,000,000 Feinstein/Boxer 

Downtown Transit Center, Indianapolis, IN ............................................................. 2,000,000 Bayh/Lugar 

Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ................................................................ 600,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Fleet and Capital Items Los Alamos County Transit System, NM .......................... 1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Forest Park Circulator/I–64 Closure Alleviation, MO ............................................... 1,000,000 Bond 

Franklin Street Station Restoration (BARTA), PA ..................................................... 1,500,000 Specter 

Grays Harbor Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ...................................................... 150,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Greater Minnesota Transit Bus and Bus Facilities, MN .......................................... 4,000,000 Coleman/Klobuchar 

Houston Downtown Clean Fuel Transit Initiative, TX .............................................. 3,000,000 Cornyn 

Hybrid-Electric Bus Acquisition (SEPTA), PA ........................................................... 2,500,000 Specter 

Idaho Transit Coalition Advanced Public Transportation System Deployment, ID .. 4,520,000 Crapo/Craig 

Illinois Bus and Bus Facilities, IL ........................................................................... 7,000,000 Durbin 

Intermodal Facilities, UT .......................................................................................... 6,000,000 Bennett/Hatch 

Island Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ................................................................. 600,000 Murray/Cantwell 

JATRAN Fleet Replacement, MS ................................................................................ 1,500,000 Cochran 

Jefferson Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ............................................................. 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority Bus Replacement (KCATA), MO ........... 1,000,000 Bond 
110 

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES—Continued 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

Lafayette Multimodal Transportation Facility, LA .................................................... 1,000,000 Vitter/Landrieu 

Lakewood Multi-Modal Facility Phase 1, NJ ............................................................ 2,000,000 Menendez/Lautenberg 

Link Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA .................................................................... 550,000 Murray/Cantwell

Main Street Bus Rapid Transit Buses, Mesa, AZ .................................................... 1,000,000 Kyl 

Mason Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ................................................................. 400,000 Murray 

Mass Transportation Authority, Flint, Michigan Fiscal Year 2008 Bus and Bus 

Facilities Program, MI.

4,000,000 Levin/Stabenow 

Metro Area Transit, Omaha, NE—Video Surveillance Security System for Transit 

Buses/Americans with Disabilities Act Complementary Paratransit Vehicles, 

NE.

700,000 Nelson, Ben 

Miami-Dade Transit Bus Procurement Plan, FL ...................................................... 1,000,000 Martinez/Nelson, Bill 

Minnesota’s Union Depot Multi-modal Transit Hub, MN ......................................... 1,000,000 Klobuchar 

Nassau County Hub, NY ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, NJ ................................................ 2,000,000 Menendez/Lautenberg 

North Orange/South Seminole ITS Enhanced Circulator, City of Orlando, FL ......... 1,750,000 Nelson, Bill/Martinez 

Norwalk Pulse Point Facility Safety Improvements, CT ........................................... 200,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Norwich Intermodal Transportation Center, CT ........................................................ 3,000,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA ................................................................ 50,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Paducah Area Transit System, KY ........................................................................... 2,000,000 McConnell 

Paratransit Vans, Las Cruces, NM ........................................................................... 320,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, Abliene, TX ......................................................... 480,000 Cornyn/Hutchison 

Pierce Transit Penninsula Park and Ride, WA ......................................................... 1,500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Port Angeles International Gateway Project, WA ..................................................... 500,000 Murray 

Pullman Transit Maintenance Facility Expansion, WA ............................................. 800,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Reno & Sparks Intermodal Transportation Centers, NV .......................................... 1,000,000 Reid/Ensign 

Replacement Buses for The Westchester County Bee-Line Bus System, NY .......... 1,000,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Replacement Buses, Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA), PA .................. 1,000,000 Specter/Casey 

Replacement of Fixed Route Transit Buses, DE ...................................................... 1,000,000 Carper/Biden 

Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation System, RI ......... 2,043,130 Reed 

Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai Counties, HI .............................. 2,000,000 Inouye 

San Antonio VIA Bus Facility Improvements and Bus Fleet Modernization, TX ...... 3,000,000 Hutchison/Cornyn 

San Diego Balboa Park Trolleys, CA ........................................................................ 500,000 Feinstein/Boxer 

Santa Fe Place Transit Center, NM ......................................................................... 1,000,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Senior Transportation Connection, OH ..................................................................... 1,600,000 Brown 

SEPTA Interoperability Communications Initiative, PA ............................................ 1,000,000 Casey 

Small Bus Replacement, St. Cloud Metro Bus, MN ................................................ 1,000,000 Klobuchar/Coleman 

Southeast Missouri Transportation Service (SMTS), MO .......................................... 1,000,000 Bond 

Southside Bus Facility Replacement in Hampton Roads, VA .................................. 2,000,000 Warner/Webb 

Spokane Transit Smart Bus Technology Modernization, WA .................................... 1,000,000 Murray/Cantwell 

State of Arkansas—Bus and Bus Facilities for Urban, Rural, and Elderly and 

Disabled Agencies, AR.

5,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO .................................................................... 2,000,000 Bond 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, NV ..................................................................... 1,000,000 Ensign/Reid 

Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Enhancements, AK ............................................... 500,000 Stevens/Murkowski 

Statewide Bus Replacement, IA ............................................................................... 7,000,000 Harkin/Grassley 

Statewide Electric Hybrid Bus Initiative by the Indiana Transit Association, IN ... 4,000,000 Lugar 

Statewide Transit, ND .............................................................................................. 2,000,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

Sunset (RTC) Maintenance Facility, NV ................................................................... 1,000,000 Reid 

Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, TN ................................................... 6,000,000 Alexander 

Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Bus Replacement Project, KY .................... 1,000,000 McConnell 

Transit Vehicle Fleet Upgrades, NM ......................................................................... 2,080,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

TRANSPO Bus Operations Center, South Bend, IN .................................................. 1,000,000 Bayh/Lugar 

Treasure Valley Transit Facilities, ID ....................................................................... 480,000 Craig/Crapo 

University Place Intermodal Transit Facility, WA ..................................................... 750,000 Murray 

Vans for Vermont Senior Centers, VT ...................................................................... 200,000 Sanders 

Vermont Statewide Buses, Facilities, and Equipment, VT ...................................... 1,000,000 Leahy/Sanders 

West Orange Township Senior Citizen & Handicapped Shuttle Bus, NJ ................. 200,000 Lautenberg 

Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI .................................................... 5,000,000 Kohl 

WMATA Bus and Bus Facilities, DC/MD/VA ............................................................. 2,000,000 Warner/Webb 

Wyandotte County Unified Government Transit Bus Replacement and Facilities 

Enhancements, KS.

1,000,000 Roberts 
111 

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

activities: 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 

Project name Committee recommendation Requested by 

Downtown Orlando East-West Circulator System, Orlando, Florida ........................ $1,000,000 Martinez/Nelson, Bill 

Bus Rapid Transit Improvements, Broward County, Florida ................................... 1,000,000 Martinez/Nelson, Bill 

Miami-Dade County Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, Florida ............................... 2,000,000 Martinez/Nelson, Bill 

MARTA Clifton Corridor (Lindbergh-Emory), Georgia ............................................... 1,000,000 Isakson/Chambliss 

Kansas City Light Rail Alternatives Analysis, Missouri ........................................... 2,500,000 Bond 

Charlotte Rapid Transit Expansion Project, North Carolina .................................... 1,000,000 Burr 

Charlotte Rapid Transit Extension—Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project, North 

Carolina.

2,750,000 Dole 

Southeastern Connecticut Bus Rapid Transit System (CT) ..................................... 2,000,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Downtown Transit Circulator, Fort Lauderdale, Florida ........................................... 1,000,000 Nelson, Bill/Martinez

CTA Circle Line, Illinois ............................................................................................ 5,000,000 Durbin 

METRA Connects, Illinois .......................................................................................... 3,750,000 Durbin/Obama 

Northwest New Jersey/Northeast Pennsylvania Commuter Rail Service .................. 2,000,000 Casey/Specter 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

General fund 

Appropriations, 2007 .............................................................................................................................................. $61,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 .......................................................................................................................................... 61,000,000 

Committee recommendation .................................................................................................................................. 65,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides financial assistance to support activities that are designed to develop solutions that improve public 

transportation. As the Federal agency responsible for transit, FTA 

assumes a leadership role in supporting research intended to identify different strategies to increase ridership, improve personal mobility, minimize automobile fuel consumption and air pollution, and 

enhance the quality of life in all communities. 

FTA may make grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or 

other agreements for research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment projects, and evaluation of technology of national significance to public transportation. FTA provides transit agencies 

with research results to help make them better equipped to improve public transportation services and to help public transportation services meet national transportation needs at a minimum 

cost. FTA assists transit agencies to employ new service methods 

and technologies that improve their operations and capital efficiencies or improve transit safety and emergency preparedness. 

The purpose of the university transportation centers [UTC] program is to foster a national resource and focal point for the support 

and conduct of research and training concerning the transportation 

of passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA’s UTC 

program are transferred to and managed by the Research and Innovation Technology Administration and combined with a transfer 

of funds from the Federal Highway Administration. 
112 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $65,500,000 for research and university research centers. The Committee recommendation is 

$4,500,000 more than the budget request, and $4,500,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends funds for the following: 

—Missouri Transportation Institute, Rolla Missouri, for research 

on alternative sources of energy to power transit vehicles (Requested by Senator Bond), $2,000,000; 

—WVU Exhaust Emission Testing Initiative, West Virginia (Requested by Senator Byrd), $1,000,000; 

—Prototype Vehicle Domestic Manufacturer to build a prototype 

streetcar, Oregon (Requested by Senator Wyden), $750,000; 

and 

—Staten Island Transit Enhancements Plan—Phase II, New 

York (Requested by Senators Clinton and Schumer), $300,000. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,566,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,399,818,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,566,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Capital Investment Grants account includes funding for two 

programs authorized under section 5309 of title 49 of the United 

States Code: the New Starts program and the Small Starts program. Under New Starts, the FTA provides grants to fund the 

building of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing 

fixed guideway systems. Eligible services include light rail, rapid 

rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, and busway/high occupancy vehicle 

[HOV] facilities. In addition, significant corridor-based bus capital 

projects which either use an exclusive lane or which involve a substantial investment in a defined corridor (such as bus rapid transit) 

may also be eligible. Under Small Starts, the FTA provides grants 

for projects requesting less than $75,000,000 and with a total cost 

of less than $250,000,000. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee action recommends a level of $1,566,000,000. The 

recommended level is $166,182,000 more than the budget request 

and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

The Committee recommends the following allocations of capital 

investment grant funds in fiscal year 2007: 
113 

Project name Funding category Committee rec- ommendation Requested by 

Jacksonville Rapid Transit System Phase 1, Florida ........................................................................................................................ Exempt ................................................... $9,870,000 Martinez/Nelson, Bill CORRIDORone Regional Rail Project, PA ........................................................................................................................................... Exempt ................................................... 11,200,000 Specter/Casey South County Commuter Rail Wickford Junction Station, RI ............................................................................................................ Exempt ................................................... 18,965,043 Reed West Corridor Light Rail Project, CO ................................................................................................................................................. Final Design ........................................... 70,000,000 Allard/Salazar/President Hartford-New Britain Busway, CT ..................................................................................................................................................... Final Design ........................................... 5,000,000 Dodd/Lieberman MARC Commuter Rail Improvements and Rolling Stock, MD ........................................................................................................... Final Design ........................................... 13,000,000 Cardin/Mikulski Northstar Corridor Rail Project, MN .................................................................................................................................................. Final Design ........................................... 65,000,000 Coleman/Klobuchar Second Avenue Subway, NY .............................................................................................................................................................. Final Design ........................................... 125,000,000 Clinton/Schumer/President Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA ........................................................................................................................................................ Final Design ........................................... 20,000,000 Webb/Warner Norfolk Light Rail Project, VA ............................................................................................................................................................ Final Design ........................................... 35,000,000 Webb/Warner Seattle University Link Extension (Light Rail Extension), WA ........................................................................................................... Final Design ........................................... 30,000,000 Murray/President Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, AZ ....................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 90,000,000 President Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail Extension, CA .......................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 70,000,000 Boxer/President Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project (T–REX), CO ....................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 70,000,000 Allard/Salazar/President CTA Ravenswood Brown Line, IL ....................................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 36,500,000 Durbin/President Largo Metrorail Extension, MD .......................................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 35,000,000 Warner/Webb/President Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, NJ ................................................................................................................................................. Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 55,192,995 Lautenberg/Menendez/ 

President 

Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, NY ................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 200,000,000 Clinton/Schumer/President South Corridor I 205/Portland Mall Light Rail Project, OR .............................................................................................................. Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 80,000,000 Smith, G./Wyden/President North Shore LRT Connector, PA ......................................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 33,516,444 President Dallas Area Rapid Transit Northwest/Southeast Light Rail MOS, TX ............................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 86,250,000 Hutchison/Cornyn/President Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail, UT ........................................................................................................................ Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 80,000,000 Bennett/Hatch/President Central Link Initial Segment, WA ...................................................................................................................................................... Full Funding Grant Agreement .............. 70,000,000 Murray/President Central Corridor Light Rail Transit, MN ............................................................................................................................................ Preliminary Engineering ......................... 35,000,000 Coleman/Klobuchar North Corridor BRT, Houston and Southeast Corridor BRT, TX ........................................................................................................ Preliminary Engineering ......................... 15,000,000 Hutchison Mid-Jordan Light Rail Extension, UT ................................................................................................................................................. Preliminary Engineering ......................... 20,000,000 Bennett/Hatch Dulles Corridor Rail Project, VA ........................................................................................................................................................ Preliminary Engineering ......................... 21,200,000 Warner/WebbSan Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail, CA ............................................................................................................................... Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 10,000,000 Feinstein South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2 Light Rail Extension, CA ........................................................................................................ Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 3,000,000 Feinstein/Boxer Metrorail Orange Line Expansion, Miami-Dade County, FL .............................................................................................................. Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 500,000 Nelson, Bill/Martinez Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, Hawaii ................................................................................................................. Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 20,000,000 Inouye/Akaka CTA Circle Line, Illinois ..................................................................................................................................................................... Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 5,000,000 Durbin 
114 

Project name Funding category Committee rec- ommendation Requested by 

METRA Connects, Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................... Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 1,300,000 Durbin ARC/The Tunnel—NJ Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor, NJ ............................................................................................................... Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 20,000,000 Lautenberg/Menendez VRE Rolling Stock, VA ........................................................................................................................................................................ Preliminary Enginnering ........................ 5,000,000 Webb Troost Corridor BRT, MO .................................................................................................................................................................... Small Starts ........................................... 6,260,000 Bond Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, CA ........................................................................................................................................ Small Starts ........................................... 3,000,000 Feinstein Telegraph Avenue-International Boulevard-East 14th Street Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Improvements, CA ................................ Small Starts ........................................... 3,000,000 Feinstein Planning and Design, Bus Rapid Transit—State Avenue Corridor, Wyandotte County, KS ............................................................ Small Starts ........................................... 1,500,000 Brownback Commuter Rail Phase II, Bernalillo to Santa Fe, NMDOT, New Mexico ............................................................................................ Small Starts ........................................... 1,500,000 Bingaman/Domenici Pawtucket/Central Falls Commuter Rail Station, RI ......................................................................................................................... Small Starts ........................................... 2,500,000 Reed Galveston Rail Trolley Extension to Seawall Boulevard, TX .............................................................................................................. Small Starts ........................................... 2,000,000 Hutchison Provo Orem Bus Rapid Transit, Utah ................................................................................................................................................ Small Starts ........................................... 6,000,000 Bennett/Hatch Route 1 Bus Rapid Transit, Potomac Yard-Crystal City, Alexandria and Arlington, VA .................................................................. Small Starts ........................................... 1,000,000 Warner/Webb King County/Pacific Highway South BRT, WA ................................................................................................................................... Small Starts ........................................... 14,250,000 Murray/PresidentDenali Commission, AK ..................................................................................................................................................................... Statutory set-aside ................................ 5,000,000 Alaska and Hawaii Ferry Capital Projects ........................................................................................................................................ Statutory set-aside ................................ 15,000,000 
115 

Seattle Light Rail Initial Segment and Extensions.—Consistent 

with the existing full funding grant agreement, the bill includes 

$70,000,000 for the initial segment of the Seattle Link light rail 

system. The bill also includes $30,000,000 for the University Link 

extension that will shortly be entering a full funding grant agreement. It has always been the goal of regional transportation planners and the locally elected leadership that the initial segment of 

this light rail system should directly connect Seattle city center 

with SeaTac International Airport. However, due to rapid changes 

in security and infrastructure planning at the airport after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Full Funding Grant Agreement 

[FFGA] for the initial segment could not include a direct connection 

into the airport. In order to rectify this situation and help provide 

for a seamless transit link directly to the airport, the bill includes 

a general provision (section 164) intended to allow any Federal 

funds that may not be necessary due to budget ‘‘under runs’’ in the 

performance of the initial segment project to be used to assist in 

the construction of the airport link. This provision will, in effect, 

allow Sound Transit to benefit from its careful management of the 

initial segment project, allowing the agency to capture the Federal 

portion of any cost savings and use those savings to close a critically important gap in transit service in the region. Requested by 

Senator Murray. 

Limited Extensions of Discretionary Funds.—There have been occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a case by 

case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to circumstances 

that were unforeseen by the project’s sponsor. The availability of 

these particular funds is intended for one additional year, absent 

further congressional direction. The Committee directs the FTA not 

to reallocate funds provided in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the 

following new starts projects: 

Alabama—Birmingham Transit Corridor 

Connecticut—Stamford, Connecticut, Urban Transitway and 

Intermodal Transportation Center Improvements 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements 

District of Columbia/Virginia—Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit 

Project 

Louisiana—Canal Streetcar Project 

Minnesota—Northstar Corridor Rail Project 

Pennsylvania—Harrisburg Corridor Rail MOS 

Pennsylvania—Schuylkill Valley Metro 

Texas—North Central Light Rail Extension; and 

Wisconsin—Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

fiscal year 2003 or previous acts for the following new starts 

projects: 

Connecticut—Bridgeport Connecticut, Intermodal Transportation 

Center Project 

District of Columbia/Virginia—Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit 

Project 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Train Station Improvements 

Delaware—Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor 

Project; and 
116 

Wisconsin—Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project. 

Appropriations for Full Funding Grant Agreements.—The Committee reiterates direction initially agreed to in the fiscal year 2002 

conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs that have 

a maximum Federal share of higher than 60 percent. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160 exempts limitations previously made available on obligations for programs of the FTA under 49 U.S.C. 5338. 

Section 161 allows funds under this act, Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants not obligated by September 30, 

2008 to be made available for other projects under 40 U.S.C. 5309. 

Section 162 allows funds appropriated before October 1, 2005, 

that remain available for expenditure to be transferred. 

Section 163 allows unobligated funds for new projects under Federal Transit Authority to be used during this fiscal year to satisfy 

expenses incurred for such projects. 

Section 164 amends the Central Link Initial Segment Project, as 

previously stated in the report. 

Section 165 makes funds provided in previous appropriations 

acts for a fixed guideway light rail project in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico available for buses and bus facilities. 

Section 166 makes funds provided in a previous appropriations 

act for Commuter Rail, Albuquerque to Santa Fe, New Mexico 

available for buses, equipment and facilities. 

Section 167 makes funds previously provided for the Las Vegas 

Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project and other new start 

projects available for bus and bus facilities under the control of the 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. 

Section 168 repeals a provision in a prior appropriations act related to subway tunneling in Los Angeles, California. Requested by 

Senator Feinstein. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] 

is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 981). The SLSDC 

is a vital transportation corridor for the international movement of 

bulk commodities such as steel, iron, grain, and coal, serving the 

North American region that makes up one-quarter of the United 

States population and nearly one-half of the Canadian population. 

The SLSDC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $16,223,160 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 17,392,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,392,000 
117 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] was established by 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99– 

662). Since 1987, the HMTF has supported the operations and 

maintenance of commercial harbor projects maintained by the Federal Government. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund and revenues from non-Federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the SLSDC is responsible. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $17,392,000 for the Operations and Maintenance of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. This 

amount is $371,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level and the 

same as the budget request. The recommended level is sufficient to 

allow the Seaway to continue its operational and maintenance programs for the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to 

sustain its high level of system availability. This amount also includes funding for concrete replacement at the U.S. locks and 

dredging in the U.S. portion of the Seaway as requested. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Administration [MARAD] is responsible for programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended 

(46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). MARAD is also responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 

Nation’s security and economic needs. MARAD prioritizes DOD’s 

use of ports and intermodal facilities during DOD mobilizations to 

guarantee the smooth flow of military cargo through commercial 

ports. MARAD manages the Maritime Security Program, the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Program and the Ready Reserve Force, which assure DOD access to commercial and strategic 

sealift and associated intermodal capacity. MARAD also continues 

to address the disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet which are deemed a potential environmental risk. 

Further, MARAD administers education and training programs 

through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six State maritime schools that assist in providing skilled merchant marine officers who are capable of serving defense and commercial transportation needs. The Committee continues to fund MARAD in its support of the United States as a maritime Nation. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $154,440,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 154,440,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 156,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Maritime Security Program provides resources to maintain 

a U.S. flag merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to serve both the 

commercial and national security needs of the United States. The 
118 

program provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in U.S. foreign trade. Participating operators are required to 

keep the vessels in active commercial service and are required to 

provide intermodal sealift support to the Department of Defense in 

times of war or national emergency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $156,000,000 for 

the Maritime Security Program. This amount is $1,560,000 more 

than both the fiscal year 2007 and the budget request. This level 

is consistent with the program’s authorized level. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $111,522,274 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 115,276,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 122,890,545 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations and Training appropriation primarily funds the 

salaries and expenses for MARAD headquarters and regional staff 

in the administration and direction for all MARAD programs. The 

account includes funding for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 

six State maritime schools, port and intermodal development, cargo 

preference, international trade relations, deep-water port licensing, 

and administrative support costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 

$122,890,000 for Operations and Training at the Maritime Administration for fiscal year 2008. This amount is $11,368,271 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level and $7,614,545 more than the budget request. Funding for the subaccounts within the ‘‘operations and 

training’’ account are provided as follows: 

Request Recommendation 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary & Benefits ............................................................................................... $24,720,000 $24,720,000 

Midshipmen Program ......................................................................................... 6,977,000 6,977,000 

Instructional Program ........................................................................................ 5,689,000 5,689,000 

Program, Direction and Admin .......................................................................... 2,915,000 2,915,000 

Maintenance, Repair and Operations ................................................................ 7,307,000 7,307,000 

Capital Improvements ........................................................................................ 13,850,000 13,850,000 

Subtotal, USMMA ........................................................................................... 61,458,000 61,458,000

State Maritime Schools: 

Direct Schoolship Payments .............................................................................. 1,881,000 1,881,000 

Student Incentive Payments .............................................................................. .............................. 800,000 

Schoolship Maintenance & Repair .................................................................... 8,119,000 10,500,000 

Subtotal, State Maritime Schools ................................................................. 10,000,000 13,181,000 

MARAD Operations: 

Ports & MTS Improvement ................................................................................. 3,111,000 7,111,000 

Capital Construction Fund Management ........................................................... 606,000 606,000 

International Activities ....................................................................................... 848,000 848,000 

Deepwater Port Licensing .................................................................................. 1,068,000 1,327,545 

Cargo Preference Management .......................................................................... 3,787,000 3,787,000 
119 

Request Recommendation 

Mobile Source Emissions ................................................................................... 737,000 737,000 

MSP Administration ........................................................................................... 688,000 688,000 

VISA/Vessel Transfer ......................................................................................... 2,143,000 2,143,000 

Mariner Training & Education Management ..................................................... 825,000 900,000 

Strategic Ports/National Security Planning ....................................................... 1,221,000 1,320,000 

War Risk Insurance ............................................................................................ 889,000 889,000 

Organizational Excellence .................................................................................. 1,438,000 1,438,000 

Administrative Support ...................................................................................... 26,457,000 26,457,000 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations ......................................................................... 43,818,000 48,251,545 

Total MARAD Operations and Training ......................................................... 115,276,000 122,890,545 

The Committee is dismayed by the actions of the Maritime Administration in moving forward with a reorganization of the agency 

without appropriate notification to the Committee. The Committee 

appropriates funding based on the information contained in the 

President’s budget request. Therefore the Committee requires notification if funding is going to be allocated in a manner that differs 

from the information that has been provided as part of an agency’s 

budget request. The Committee reminds the agency of this requirement, and expects that the agency will meet this requirement 

should there be any deviations from the President’s 2008 budget request in the coming year. 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.—The U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy developed a Master plan to address and correct deficiencies at Academy facilities. The $13,850,000 provided is slightly 

more than the amount called for in the Master Plan. As part of the 

2009 budget submission, the Committee directs MARAD to include 

detailed information on the construction planned with the funding 

provided. 

State Maritime Academies.—The Committee has recommended 

an appropriation of $13,818,000 for the State Maritime Academies. 

The amount provided represents an increase of $3,818,000 over the 

budget request. The Committee supports efforts to offer incentives 

for students to attend the Maritime Academies, and has therefore 

rejected the President’s proposal to eliminate the Student Incentive 

Payment scholarship. The amount provided is sufficient to maintain the same number of enrollees in the program. The Committee 

has also included an increase in Schoolship Maintenance and Repair funding. The Committee believes that it is critical that the 

ships used at the academies are in the best possible condition in 

order to appropriately educate the mariners attending the State 

schools. 

MARAD Operations.—The Committee has made adjustments to 

several MARAD programs in order to support important initiatives 

of the agency. The Committee has increased Deepwater Port licensing activities by $259,545. The agency is responsible for issuing licenses for the operation of offshore oil and natural gas receiving facilities. The Committee supports the agency’s efforts to encourage 

the utilization of U.S. crews onboard liquefied natural gas vessels. 

The Committee has also increased funding for Mariner Training 

and Education Management by $75,000 and Strategic Ports/National Security Planning by $99,000. 
120 

Marine Transportation System.—The Maritime Administration is 

the single source for all Marine Transportation System [MTS] information. The information advocate is a comprehensive database 

of information to assist in reducing intermodal congestion and to 

increase transportation efficiency. The Committee has provided an 

additional $4,000,000 for the Maritime Administration to advance 

their existing Information Framework, expand their mission of information advocacy for all MTS information and assure critical marine information is captured, managed, protected and available to 

all authorized agencies. Requested by Senator Cochran. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $20,790,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Disposal account provides resources to dispose of obsolete merchant-type vessels of 150,000 gross tons or more in the National Defense Reserve Fleet [NDRF] which the Maritime Administration is required by law to dispose of by the end of 2006. Currently there is a backlog of more than 115 ships awaiting disposal. 

Many of these vessels are some 50 years old or more and pose a 

significant environmental threat due to the presence of hazardous 

substances such as asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated 

biphenyls [PCBs]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,000,000 for 

ship disposal. This amount is $2,790,000 less than the fiscal year 

2007 level and $2,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee has decreased funding in the program due to a large amount 

of carryover funding, which can help support the program’s activities in 2008. 

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL SHIPYARDS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As authorized by section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, the Assistance to Small Shipyards 

program provides assistance in the form of grants, loans and loan 

guarantees to small shipyards for capital improvements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee is recommending an appropriation of $20,000,000 

for assistance to small shipyards and maritime communities. No 

funding was requested for this program in the President’s budget. 

This program was authorized in 2006, but funding has never been 

provided to the program. The Committee believes that this program is important to maritime communities and shipyards and will 
121 

improve the ability of domestic shipyards to compete for domestic 

and international commercial ship construction. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $4,085,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,408,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Program, established pursuant to title XI of the Merchant 

Marine Act, 1936, as amended, provides for a full faith and credit 

guarantee by the U.S. Government of debt obligations issued by (1) 

U.S. or foreign shipowners for the purpose of financing or refinancing either U.S. flag vessels or eligible export vessels constructed, reconstructed or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards and (2) 

U.S. shipyards for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding 

technology and modern shipbuilding technology (Technology) of a 

privately owned general shipyard facility located in the United 

States. The Program is administered by the Secretary of Transportation acting by and through the Maritime Administrator. Under 

the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, appropriations to cover the 

estimated costs of a project must be obtained prior to the issuance 

of any approvals for title XI financing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 

$13,408,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. 

Of the amount provided, $3,408,000 is for administrative expenses 

necessary to carry out the program. The Committee notes that 

$5,000,000 was included in fiscal year 2006 for Maritime Guaranteed Loan Title XI program. In combining the funding provided in 

both years, an appropriated level of $15,000,000 will provide for a 

total loan volume of over $250,000,000. The Committee expects 

that MARAD will move forward expeditiously in approving loan 

guarantees that are critical to our Nation’s shipbuilding industry. 

The Committee has also included language that requires the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General [IG] to certify to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that MARAD 

is in compliance with the recommendations contained in the IG’s 

audit reports on the title XI program. 

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ¥$2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥4,614,545 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Ship Construction account, which hasn’t been funded since 

1981, provided construction cost subsidies for vessels built to operate in U.S. foreign trade. This program was designed to offset the 

higher cost of constructing ships in the U.S. versus overseas. 
122 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended a rescission of all unobligated 

balances under this heading. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170 authorizes the Maritime Administration to furnish 

utilities and services and make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government property under the control of 

MARAD. Rental payments received pursuant to this provision shall 

be credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171 prohibits obligations incurred during the current 

year from construction funds in excess of the appropriations and 

limitations contained in this act or in any prior appropriation act. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

[PHMSA] was established in the Department of Transportation on 

November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research 

and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). The 

PHMSA is responsible for the Department’s pipeline safety program as well as oversight of hazardous materials transportation 

safety operations. The administration also is dedicated to safety, 

including the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries associated with hazardous materials and pipeline transportation, and by promoting transportation solutions that enhance 

communities and protect the environment. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $18,031,209 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 18,130,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,130,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $18,130,000 for this account, of 

which $639,000 is transferred from the Pipeline Safety Fund. This 

funding is the same as the budget request and $98,791 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee expects PHMSA to use 

these funds as reflected in its budget justification. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFTEY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $26,722,887 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 27,003,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,003,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The PHMSA oversees the safety of more than 800,000 daily shipments of hazardous materials in the United States. PHMSA uses 

risk management principles and security threat assessments to 
123 

fully assess and reduce the risks inherent in hazardous materials 

transportation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,003,000 for hazardous materials 

safety, of which $1,761,000 shall remain available until September 

30, 2009. These funds are the same as the budget request and 

$280,113 more than the fiscal year 2007 funding level. 

Hazmat Intermodal Portal.—Within the funds provided, the 

Committee has included $1,100,000 for the Hazmat Intermodal 

Portal, as requested. An additional $400,000 is provided for this activity under the Office of Pipeline Safety. The Committee supports 

the Department’s effort to consolidate hazmat data among the various DOT modes that are responsible for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials. This tool should allow the Department to more effectively monitor the shipment of hazardous materials. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $74,915,297 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 74,580,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 82,404,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] is designed to promote the 

safe, reliable, and reliable sound transportation of natural gas and 

hazardous liquids by pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,404,000 for 

the Office of Pipeline Safety. This amount is $7,488,703 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 level and $7,824,000 more than the budget request. Of the funding provided, $18,810,000 shall be derived from 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and $63,594,000 shall be from 

the Pipeline Safety Fund. Funding adjustments have been made to 

the following activities within the budget: inspector and enforcement staffing, research and development programs, and Oil Pollution Act implementation activities. 

Inspection and Enforcement Staffing.—The Pipeline Inspection, 

Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 was signed into 

law in December 2006. This law called for an increased inspection 

and enforcement workforce for the Office of Pipeline Safety. The 

Committee believes that these personnel are essential to preventing pipeline accidents and ensuring the integrity of the Nation’s pipeline system. The Committee has therefore included 

$33,003,000 to accommodate a total level of 111 inspection and enforcement FTEs as authorized, this represents 12 FTE more than 

the FTE level requested in the budget. 

Research and Development.—The Committee has rejected the 

proposed reduction to the research and development program with-
124 

in the Office of Pipeline Safety, and has funded the program at 

$10,000,000. This amount is $907,000 more than the fiscal year 

2007 level and $6,250,000 more than the budget request. The Committee has provided funding for the following activities within the 

research and development program: 

Amount 

Mapping and Information Systems ...................................................................................................................... $1,265,000 

Enhanced Operations, Control and Monitoring .................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Damage Prevention and Leak Detection .............................................................................................................. 4,600,000 

Improved Materials Performance ......................................................................................................................... 2,135,000 

In-line inspection devices that are able to detect defects in underground pipelines, known as ‘‘smart pigs’’, have proven valuable in 

identifying potentially dangerous flaws in the Nation’s pipelines. 

However, in a September 2006 report evaluating threats to hazardous liquid pipelines, the Department of Transportation Inspector General stated the need for PHMSA to continue research and 

development activities to address limitations to the current smart 

pig technology. The Committee also believes that PHMSA should 

focus attention on developing technologies that can address the 

challenges with inspecting natural gas transmission and gathering 

pipelines, such as the fact that many too small to accommodate 

current pigging technologies. As such, the Committee has provided 

$4,600,000 for research and development related to damage prevention and leak detection technologies to advance research in these 

areas. 

Oil Pollution Act Activities.—The Committee has recommended 

increased levels requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget by 

$338,000. The Committee expects this funding to be used to continue activities related to field exercises to prepare and strengthen 

operator readiness to respond to oil spills from pipelines, and assess and remediate any conditions which may have led to spills. 

Grants to States.—The Committee has included the recommended funding of $22,967,000 for the Office of Pipeline Safety’s 

grants programs. This amount includes an increase of $1,000,000 

to the State Pipeline Safety grants, which supports the increased 

inspection responsibilities of State pipeline agencies, such as new 

natural gas integrity management requirements. The funding recommended includes $1,043,000 for State one-call grants and 

$1,515,000 is for the new State damage prevention grant program. 

These two grant programs are both aimed at preventing damage to 

underground pipelines. The Committee has also included funding 

for the new technology grant program at $500,000, as requested. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $14,157,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 28,318,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,318,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hazardness Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 [HMTUSA] requires PHMSA to (1) develop and implement a 
125 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory 

training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $28,506,000 for this activity, of 

which $188,000 shall be for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee includes an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the emergency 

preparedness grant program. 

The recommended level for emergency preparedness grants support training of first responders and planning for communities to 

allow them to appropriately respond to hazardous materials incidents. This amount also supports the development and publication 

of the Emergency Response Guidebook, as well as, training and 

curriculum development for public sector emergency response and 

preparedness teams. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $7,736,103 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 12,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration [RITA] 

was established in the Department of Transportation, effective November 24, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and 

Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246). The mission of RITA is to focus the Department’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the Department. 

RITA includes the University Transportation Centers, the Volpe 

National Transportation Center and the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics [BTS], which is funded by an allocation from the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Federal-aid highway account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,000,000 for 

Research and Innovative Technologies Administration for fiscal 

year 2008. The amount provided is $4,263,897 more then the fiscal 

year 2007 level and equal to the budget request. The Committee 

has included funding to support the maintenance and operation of 

the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System [NDGPS] 

system as requested. Funding for NDGPS will also support a systems analysis and assessment of current and potential future 

NDGPS requirements for transportation and other applications. 

The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the following program activities in the following amounts: 
126 

Amount 

Salaries and Administrative Expenses ................................................................................................................ $5,964,000 

Hydrogen Fuels Safety Research and Development ............................................................................................ 500,000 

RD&T Coordination ............................................................................................................................................... 536,000 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System [NDGPS] .............................................................................. 5,000,000 

RITA has the mission of coordinating, facilitating and reviewing 

research development and technology activities at the Department 

of Transportation [DOT]. RITA has an important role to play in advancing transportation technologies that improve the mobility, 

safety and efficiency of the Nation’s transportation system. By coordinating research among various DOT modes, RITA should be 

able to reduce duplicative research and advance innovative technologies that support the goals of the Department. In August 2006, 

the Government Accountability Office [GAO] released a report requested by the Committee that identified some opportunities for 

RITA to improve its coordination and oversight of DOT research 

programs. The Committee continues to believe that RITA must 

strengthen its role in coordinating research activities among the 

various DOT modes. The Committee looks forward to GAO’s followup on its audit, which should assess RITA’s response to its recommendations, including how RITA is working with DOT operating 

administrations to develop and implement strategies, performance 

goals, and performance measures that ensure coordinated research 

that will advance the Department’s goals. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Limitation on obligations, 2007 ............................................................ $27,561,537 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 27,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] is funded by an 

allocation from the limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways. The Bureau compiles, analyzes, and makes accessible information on the Nation’s transportation systems; collects information 

on intermodal transportation and other areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of 

the Department of Transportation through research, the development of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway Administration, 

the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. 

The Committee limits BTS staff to 122 FTEs in fiscal year 2008 

in order to curtail the significant growth in staffing that occurred 

previously within this agency. 
127 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $64,043,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 66,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed to 

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse; and (4) keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems and deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $66,400,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General, which is $357,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

In addition, the OIG will receive $6,874,000 from other agencies 

in this bill for audit and investigation activities within that agency, 

as noted below: 

Amount 

Federal Highway Administration .......................................................................................................................... $4,024,000 

Federal Transit Administration ............................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................................................................... 750,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ................................................................................................................. 100,000 

Funding is sufficient to finance 410 full-time equivalent [FTE] 

staff in fiscal year 2008, for a decrease of 10 FTEs from the fiscal 

year 2007 level. 

Audit Reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General 

to continue to forward copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee has included a provision in section 407 that requires all departments and agencies in this act to report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole source 

contracts, including the contractor, the amount of the contract, and 

the rationale for a sole-source procurement as opposed to a marketbased procurement. The Committee directs the IG to assess any 

conflicts of interest with regard to these contracts and DOT. 

Unfair Business Practices.—The bill maintains language which 

authorizes the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or 
128 

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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting collections 

Appropriations, 2007 .......................................................................................................... $26,313,000 $25,063,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 23,085,000 21,835,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 25,000,000 23,750,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Surface Transportation Board [STB] was created on January 

1, 1996, by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 

of 1995 [ICCTA] (Public Law 104–88). The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT and is responsible for the regulation 

of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. 

STB’s rail oversight activities encompass rate reasonableness, car 

service and interchange, mergers, line acquisitions, line constructions, and abandonments. STB’s jurisdiction also includes certain 

oversight of the intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers, rate 

regulation involving noncontiguous domestic water transportation, 

household goods carriers, and collectively determined motor carrier 

rates. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $25,000,000. 

This funding level is $1,915,000 more than the budget request and 

$1,313,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Included in 

the recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the Board will be able to 

accommodate 150 full-time equivalent staff. 

User Fees.—Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. Language is included in the bill allowing fees to be credited to the appropriation 

on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and credited. 

The Committee continues this language to simplify the tracking of 

the collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in 

spending its appropriated funds. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Section 180 allows funds for maintenance and operation of aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, 

as authorized by law. 

Section 181 limits appropriations for services authorized by 5 

U.S.C. 3109 not to exceed the rate for an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182 prohibits funds in this act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 110 political and presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation. 
129 

Section 183 prohibits funds for the implementation of section 404 

of title 23, United States Code. 

Section 184 prohibits recipients of funds made available in this 

act to release personal information, including a Social Security 

number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a 

driver’s license or motor vehicle record without express consent of 

the person to whom such information pertains; and prohibits the 

Secretary of Transportation from withholding funds provided in 

this act for any grantee if a State is in noncompliance with this 

provision. 

Section 185 allows funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration from States, counties, municipalities, other 

public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 

training may be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow 

issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred 

stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187 prohibits funds in this act to make a grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations at least 3 full business days before 

any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding 

grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the 

Department or its modal administration. 

Section 188 allows rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor 

fees and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 

from travel management center, charge card programs, subleasing 

of building space and miscellaneous sources are to be credited to 

appropriations of the Department of Transportation. 

Section 189 requires amounts from improper payments to a third 

party contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of 

Transportation be available to cover expenses incurred in recovery 

of such payments. 

Section 190 establishes requirements for reprogramming actions 

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 191 eliminates certain solid waste processing entities 

from the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board. 

Section 192 prohibits the Surface Transportation Board from 

charging filing fees for rate complaints that are greater than the 

fees authorized for district court civil suits. 

Section 193 requires an investigation by the Department of 

Transportation Inspector General on rail service disruptions. 
(130) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $34,989,245,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 33,675,018,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,167,029,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was 

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public 

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the 

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with 

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities. 

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of 

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in 

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs 

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs 

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid 

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay. 

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate and 

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better 

communities and living environments. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2008 an appropriation of $36,167,029,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. This is $1,177,784,000 more than the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level and $2,492,011,000 more then the budget request. 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $3,820,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 3,930,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,930,000 

1 As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses account. 
131 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The responsibilities of the Department are administered under 

the supervision and direction of the Secretary, who is responsible 

for the administration of all programs, functions and authorities of 

the Department. The Deputy Secretary assists the Secretary in the 

discharge of the duties and responsibilities, and serves as Acting 

Secretary in the absence of the Secretary. In addition to the Office 

of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, activities include four offices of highly specialized staff with Department-wide responsibility 

for the following functions: participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in the contracting activities of the Department; 

Public Affairs; Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations; and 

Administrative Judicial proceedings. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,930,000 for 

the Office of the Secretary. This level is the same as the budget request and $110,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,340,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,490,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,490,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Hearings and Appeals is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary whose administrative 

judges conduct hearings and make determinations for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] in accordance 

with existing statues and departmental policies, regulations, and 

procedures. The Office of Hearings and Appeals is headed by a Director appointed by the Secretary who supervises the administrative judges, administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and support staff. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This level is the same as the 

budget request and $150,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $670,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 510,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 510,000 

1 As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses account. 
132 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is 

responsible for the implementation and execution of the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] activities on behalf of small businesses, minority businesses, businesses owned 

and controlled by disadvantaged persons, and firms, in accordance 

with sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act [SBA], as amended. The Office has functional direction and oversight of Department 

of Housing and Urban Development personnel to the extent that 

the functions and duties of such personnel relate to sections 8 and 

15 of the SBA. For the functions and responsibilities required by 

Public Law 95–507, the Director shall be responsible only to, and 

report directly to, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $510,000 for the 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. This level 

is the same as the budget request and $160,000 less than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $39,710,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 43,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,750,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO] provides leadership in instituting financial integrity, fiscal responsibility and accountability. The CFO reports directly to and advises the Secretary 

of the Department on all aspects of financial management, accounting and budgetary matters; ensures that the Department establishes and meets financial management goals and objectives; that 

the Department is in compliance with financial management legislation and directives; analyzes budgetary implications of policy and 

legislative proposals and provides technical oversight with respect 

to all budget activities throughout the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,750,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. This level is the same as 

the budget request and $4,040,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. 
133 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $82,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 86,820,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,820,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The General Counsel, as the chief legal officer and legal voice of 

the Department, is the legal adviser to the Secretary and other 

principal staff of the Department. It is the responsibility of the 

General Counsel to provide legal opinions, advice and services with 

respect to all programs and activities, and to provide counsel and 

assistance in the development of the Department’s programs and 

policies. Through the Departmental Enforcement Center [DEC], the 

General Counsel focuses on and resolves the Department’s most 

difficult housing cases by taking aggressive action against those 

that are in serious non-compliance with regulatory and business 

agreement requirements. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $86,820,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. This level is the same as the 

budget request and $3,920,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $12,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 13,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,500,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Chief Procurement Officer [OCPO]’s mission is 

to provide high-quality acquisition support services to all HUD program offices by purchasing necessary operational and mission-related goods and services; provide advice, guidance and technical assistance to all departmental offices on matters concerning procurement; assist program offices in defining and specifying their procurement needs; develop and maintain all procurement guidance 

including regulations, policies, and procedures; and assist in the 

development of sound acquisition strategies 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,500,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer. This level is the same 

as the budget request and $1,500,000 more than the fiscal year 

2007 level. 
134 

CENTER FOR FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,860,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,860,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

HUD’s Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives conducts outreach, recommends changes to HUD polices and programs 

that present barriers to grassroots organizations, and initiates special projects, such as grant writing training. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,860,000 for 

the Center for Faith-Based Initiatives. This level is the same as the 

budget request and $380,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL AND

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $2,330,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 2,670,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,670,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations is the principal advisor to the Secretary, Deputy 

Secretary and senior staff with respect to legislative affairs, congressional relations, and policy matters affecting Federal, State, 

and local governments, and public and private interest groups. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,670,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. This level is the same as the budget request and $340,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $2,140,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 2,630,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,630,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

HUD’s Office of Public Affairs [OPA] educates the American public on the Department’s mission to increase homeownership, sup-
135 

port community development and increase access to affordable 

housing free from discrimination. By pursuing media outreach, 

OPA works to ensure homeowners, renters, and those living in subsidized housing hear directly from key officials about the Department’s latest initiatives and goals. Using communications tools 

such as press releases, press conferences, the Internet, media interviews and community outreach, OPA provides Americans with information about housing policies and programs that are important 

to them. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,630,000 for 

the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. This level is the same as 

the budget request and $490,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. 

OFFICE OF DEPARTMENTAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $3,070,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 3,440,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,440,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The mission of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity 

is to ensure the enforcement of Federal laws relating to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in the Department’s employment practices. The mission of the Office is carried out through the 

functions of three Divisions, the Affirmative Employment Division, 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution Division, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Division. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,440,000 for 

the Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity. This 

level is the same as the budget request and $370,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 level. 

ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,430,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,480,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,480,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for the 

development and implementation of policies, standards, procedures, 
136 

systems and materials related to the resource and administrative 

management of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,480,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. This level 

is the same as the budget request and $50,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. 

ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $238,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 252,010,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 252,010,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Administration provides general support services to 

all offices and divisions throughout HUD. These services include: 

management analysis, human resource management, employee 

training, performance analysis; providing general building and office services, maintaining correspondence and scheduling for the 

Secretary; as well as carrying out special activities directly assigned by the Secretary of HUD. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $252,010,000 for 

the Office of Administration. This level is the same as the budget 

request and $13,600,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS AND COORDINATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $11,990,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 12,520,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,520,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination [ODOC] 

perform a broad range of cross-program functions that assist the 

Secretary and the Deputy Secretary with HUD’s continuing management improvement initiatives. Key responsibilities include leading the development and monitoring of the Department’s Management and Strategic Plans; overseeing HUD’s planning and accountability processes to ensure that the Department achieves its goals 

and quality improvement objectives; managing the Department’s 

Compliance and Monitoring Program; managing the Department’s 

Internet, Intranet, and other public access technology; managing 

HUD’s oversight and monitoring of labor standards for HUD-funded construction projects; and coordinating Executive Management 

and Field Office Management Meetings for the Deputy Secretary. 
137 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,520,000 for 

the Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination. This level 

is the same as the budget request and $530,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF FIELD POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $52,020,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 47,730,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,730,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Field Policy and Management serves as the principal advisor of providing oversight and communicate Secretarial 

priorities and policies to the field office staff and clients. The Regional and Field Office Directors act as the operational managers 

in each of the field offices. The Regional and Field Office Directors 

direct and coordinate cross program delivery of the Department’s 

programs in the field. Activities in the field includes conducting 

marketing and outreach activities, upholding customer service 

standards, providing cross program coordination, and serving as 

point of contact with the media, website management, general public and elected officials. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,730,000 for 

the Office of Field Policy and Management. This level is the same 

as the budget request and $4,290,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 

level. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN

HOUSING

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,450,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,620,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,620,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing [PIH] is responsible for the management, direction and oversight of promoting affordable housing opportunities for low-income 

families as they transition to self-sufficiency and homeownership. 

The key tasks in achieving the mission include the review and 

oversight of policy and procedures as well as implementing special 

projects. In efforts to review and oversee policy and procedure implementation, the Office coordinates PIH work with offices within 
138 

the Department, OMB, Congress, and other Federal, State, and 

local agencies and officials. This office also administers and coordinates operations of PIH offices while providing technical assistance 

and guidance for policy and procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,620,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. 

This level is the same as the budget request and $170,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $176,060,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 188,340,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 188,340,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Public and Indian Housing oversees the administration of HUD’s Public Housing, Housing Choice Voucher, Section 8 

Rental Assistance and Native American Programs. PIH is responsible for administering and managing programs authorized and 

funded by Congress under the basic provisions of the U.S. Housing 

Act of 1937. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $188,340,000 for 

the Office of Public and Indian Housing. This level is the same as 

the budget request and $12,280,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. 

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 1 ........................................................................... $15,920,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 1 ......................................................................... 16,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 16,598,694,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 tenant-based 

(voucher) program. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance is 

one of the principle appropriations for Federal housing assistance 

and provides rental housing assistance to over 2 million families. 

Further, it funds incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families, to provide vouchers for tenants that live in projects 

where the owner of the project has decided to leave the section 8 

program, or for replacement of units lost from the assisted housing 

inventory (tenant protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs, 

eligible low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income 

for rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for the remain-
139 

der of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment 

standard. This account also provides funding for the Contract Administrator program, Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS] and the Family 

Unification program. Under FSS, families receive job training and 

employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency on 

welfare programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,598,694,000 for fiscal year 2008; including $4,200,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2008. This amount is 

$605,694,000 more than the budget request and $671,694,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee recommends $14,936,000,000 for the renewal 

costs for section 8 contracts which is $491,694,000 more than the 

budget request and $493,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. The Committee notes that the budget request provides only 

$8,306,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level for all the renewal 

costs associated with almost 2 million vouchers. The administration 

budget would force Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] to cover all 

inflationary costs associated with rent increases as well as absorb 

the cost of tenant protection vouchers that were added to their authorized lease levels. The vast majority of PHAs do not have sufficient resources to meet this unfunded responsibility and the result 

would be the possible displacement of vulnerable low-income residents. Adequate funding has been provided for inflationary costs, 

incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families, vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the owner of the project 

has decided to opt-out of the section 8 project-based program, or for 

the replacement of other units lost from the assisted housing inventory. This appropriation will ensure that PHAs have sufficient 

funding to renew approximately 2 million existing contracts and 

prevent the displacement of any current tenants. 

The Committee continues the section 8 renewal formula established in fiscal year 2007. This formula is based on data derived 

through the voucher management system [VMS] on the most recently completed 12 consecutive month period that reflects the actual costs off all vouchers under lease. This formula provides an efficient method to capture actual costs incurred by PHAs including 

variations in the rental markets. The Committee continues to exempt specific categories of public housing authorities from the new 

12-month formula; namely (1) agencies impacted by Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita that can demonstrate use of such funds within 

12 months; (2) agencies that are under receivership within 24 

months of enactment of this act and can demonstrate use of such 

funds within 12 months; and (3) agencies that spent more than the 

total of their allocated funds for 2006 and 2007. 

The Committee provides a set-aside of $100,000,000 to adjust 

PHA’s allocations to include (1) PHAs that were unfairly disadvantaged from excessive costs due to portability; and (2) PHAs that increased their utilization rate using available reserves. 

Tenant Protection Vouchers.—The Committee recommends 

$150,000,000 for tenant protection assistance. This is the same as 

the budget request and $700,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 
140 

level. The Committee rejects the administrative efforts to limit tenant protection vouchers only to units under lease at the time of 

conversion. Rather, the Committee has included statutory language 

requiring the Secretary to provide replacement vouchers for all 

units that cease to be available as assisted housing due to demolition, disposition, or conversion, subject to the available of funds. 

This statutory change will prevent the loss of critical housing assistance in communities around the Nation. 

Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for family self-sufficiency coordinators. This 

is $2,500,000 more than the budget request and $2,000,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. These funds are designed to promote self-sufficiency by developing local strategies to coordinate 

public and private resources that help voucher participants and 

public housing tenants obtain employment to achieve economic 

independence. 

Family Unification Program.—The Committee recommends 

$30,000,000 for the Family Unification program. The administration did not request funding for this program. This program provides vouchers for families for whom the lack of adequate housing 

is a primary factor in the separation, or the threat of imminent 

separation, of children from their families. This program also provides vouchers to youths 18 to 21 years old who left foster care at 

age 16 or older and lack adequate housing. 

Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program.—The Committee 

recommends $75,000,000 for the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program. The administration did not request funding for this 

program. According to a recent HUD report submitted to Congress, 

homeless veterans make up approximately 18.7 percent of all 

homeless adults who accessed an emergency shelter or transitional 

housing. This program provides section 8 vouchers for homeless 

veterans. This program is a supported jointly by the HUD and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. The VA provides ongoing 

treatment services to veterans that are homeless, mentally ill and 

suffer from substance abuse disorders. The VA screens homeless 

veterans for program eligibility and provides case management 

services to the enrollees. HUD provides the rental assistance subsidy through PHAs utilizing the section 8 voucher program. The 

Secretary of HUD, in consultation with the Secretary of VA, may 

waive certain HUD requirements necessary for the effective delivery and administration of such voucher assistance. The Committee 

notes that funding should be sufficient to provide assistance for 

over 7,500 homeless veterans. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,351,000,000 for administrative fees for PHAs. This is equal to 

the budget request and $69,900,000 more than the comparable 

funding level for fiscal year 2007. These funds are to be allocated 

on a formula tied to units under lease. These funds pay for the administrative functions for the section 8 voucher program. 

Working Capital Transfer.—The Committee includes language allowing up to $6,494,000 to be transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund. This is the same as the budget request and $594,000 more 

than fiscal year 2007 level. The Working Capital Fund is needed 

for HUD to complete an effective IT system to track HUD funding. 
141 

Semiannual Reports.—The Committee requests the Secretary to 

continue to submit the semi-annual on the effectiveness of the 

budget-based approach to vouchers as first mandated in Senate Report 109–109. 

Report on Certain Special Purpose Vouchers.—Within 120 days 

after enactment of this act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations a report stating the total amount of 

budget authority and number of vouchers provided each year from 

2001 through fiscal year 2007 to public housing agencies for the 

first time renewal of each category of tenant protection vouchers, 

including HOPE VI vouchers and relocation vouchers necessitated 

by mandatory and voluntary conversions, demolitions, and disposition of public housing developments. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2007 .............................................................................¥$1,650,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥1,300,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥1,100,000,000 

The Housing Certificate Fund until fiscal year 2005 provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the section 8 program. Project-based rental assistance and tenantbased rental assistance are now separately funded accounts. The 

Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,100,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2008. This amount is $200,000,000 less than the budget 

request and $550,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 level. The 

administration has been unable to provide the Committee information indicating that a rescission of a full $1,300,000,000 is achievable in fiscal year 2008 without doing harm to other HUD programs. If the HUD Secretary is unable to recapture unused section 

8 balances of this volume, a rescission of the size requested by the 

President could result in funds being rescinded from critical programs such as Homeless Assistance, HOME, HOPE VI, Section 202 

Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Housing for Persons with 

Disabilities. Reducing balances from these accounts will cause 

great harm to some of the most vulnerable low-income populations 

in the Nation. 

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $5,976,417,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,813,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,813,000,000 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Section 8 project-based rental assistance provides a rental subsidy to a private landlord that is tied to a specific housing unit as 

opposed to a voucher which allows a recipient to seek a unit, sub-
142 

ject primarily to certain rent caps. Amounts in this account include 

funding for the renewal of expiring 8 project-based contracts, including section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy [SRO] housing. This account also provides funds for contract 

administrators. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 

$5,813,000,000 for the annual renewal of project-based contracts, of 

which up to $286,230,000 is for the cost of contract administrators 

and up to $3,960,000 may be transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund. This funding is equal to the budget request and 

$163,417,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $2,438,964,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,024,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,500,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital 

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation and 

homeownership activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,500,000,000 

for the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is $476,000,000 more 

than the budget request and $61,036,000 more than the fiscal year 

2007 level. 

Of the amount made available under this section, $40,000,000 is 

for supportive services for residents of public housing and up to 

$8,820,000 is made available to pay the costs of administrative and 

judicial receiverships. The Committee includes language allowing 

up to $16,847,000 to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

The Committee recommends $14,890,000, equal to the budget request, for technical assistance activities. 

The Committee provides an adequate increase in funding for capital needs in order to maintain the public housing portfolio which 

is necessary to preserve affordable, safe and sanitary housing for 

low-income residents. The Committee directs HUD to perform a 

new Capital Needs Assessment [CNA] for the entire public housing 

portfolio including the projected annual cost to adequately maintain that portfolio and submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by June 30, 2008. It has been several years since the last CNA was performed and the Committee 

believes that this information must be updated. 

HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account as 

an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $20,000,000 for emergency 

capital needs. 
143 

The Committee recommends up to $15,345,000, equal to the 

budget request, to support the ongoing financial and physical assessment activities at the Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC]. 

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $3,864,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 4,000,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,200,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to approximately 3,100 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of approximately 1.2 million 

units under management in order to augment rent payments by 

residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable 

operating costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for the public housing operating fund, which is $200,000,000 more 

than the budget request and $336,000,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. The Committee has provided additional funds to 

offset rising utility costs and increased requirements placed on 

PHAs. 

HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account as 

an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal year 

2004 appropriation bill that prohibits the use of operating funds to 

pay for the operating expenses for a prior year. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $99,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Revitalization of severely distressed public housing’’ [HOPE 

VI] account makes awards to public housing authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these developments 

exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate public housing which 

was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and difficult to manage effectively due to multiple deficiencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000 for 

the ‘‘HOPE VI’’ account. This amount is $1,000,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2007 level and $100,000,000 more than the budget request. In addition, the Committee has rejected the President’s request to rescind funds provided under this heading for fiscal year 

2007. 

The HOPE VI program has replaced distressed public housing located in neighborhoods that have concentrated poverty with new 
144 

mixed-income housing. HOPE VI projects have succeeded in improving the communities in which these developments are located, 

as well as changing the lives of public housing residents. While a 

great deal of public housing has already been rehabilitated through 

this program, the Committee believes that the HOPE VI program 

must continue to play an important role in revitalizing distressed 

communities. 

HUD made modifications to the program in 2002 that addressed 

some challenges identified with earlier grant awards. The agency 

has also taken steps to improve its management and oversight of 

the grant program. These changes have resulted in improved timeliness and accountability in the implementation of HOPE VI 

grants. These changes, as well as the increased resources leveraged 

from the private sector, make the case for the program’s continuation. 

The Committee shares the administration’s concern about the 

large amount of unobligated balances in this account and applauds 

HUD’s efforts to work with older grantees to reduce their unspent 

balances. These efforts have reduced unexpended balances, from 

the high of $3,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to the current level 

of $1,500,000,000. In order to continue the advancement and expenditure of HOPE VI grants, the Committee continues to provide 

technical assistance funding at the level of $1,980,000 within the 

account. The Committee directs HUD to utilize this funding to provide grantees with the necessary tools to carry out successful 

HOPE VI projects. The Committee also makes notes of unobligated 

technical assistance funding and directs HUD to also use this funding to further reduce unexpended balances. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $623,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 626,965,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 630,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the native American housing block grants 

program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 [NAHASDA]. 

This program provides an allocation of funds on a formula basis to 

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to help 

them address the housing needs within their communities. Under 

this block grant, Indian tribes will use performance measures and 

benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $630,000,000 for 

the Native American Housing Block Grant, of which $1,980,000 is 

set aside for a credit subsidy to support a loan level not to exceed 

$17,000,000 for the section 601 Loan Guarantee Loan Program. 
145 

This total level is $3,035,000 more than the budget request and 

$6,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee includes $2,000,000 for technical assistance 

through the National American Housing Council and $4,250,000 for 

inspections of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, 

technical assistance, oversight and management. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $8,726,850 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,940,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to State of Hawaiian Home Lands for housing and housing 

related assistance to develop, maintain, and operate affordable 

housing for eligible low income Native Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 for 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, which is $3,060,000 

more than the budget request and $273,150 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. Of the amount provided, $300,000 shall be for 

training and technical assistance activities. 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct loans 

Appropriations, 2007 .......................................................................................................... $6,000,000 $251,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 7,450,000 367,000,000 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 7,450,000 367,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities 

who otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the 

unique status of Indian trust land. As required by the Federal 

Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs 

associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,450,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $367,000,000. This 

subsidy level is the same as the budget request and $1,450,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 
146 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on 

direct loans 

Appropriations, 2007 .......................................................................................................... $891,000 $35,714,290 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 1,044,000 41,504,255 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 1,044,000 41,504,255 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing finance because 

of the unique status of the Hawaiians Home Lands as trust land. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,044,000 in 

program subsidies to support a loan level of $41,504,255, which is 

the same as the budget request and $5,789,965 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING

AND DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,420,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,520,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,520,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development is responsible for setting policy and administering HUD community development programs to assure the effective operation and 

achievement necessary to improve the economic, physical, and social capital of communities. The staff is responsible for representing policy and programs to clients and interest groups including Congress and coordinating uniform policy implementation to 43 

field offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,520,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development. This level is the same as the budget request and 

$100,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 
147 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $87,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 93,770,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 93,770,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Community Planning and Development assists in 

developing viable communities by promoting integrated approaches 

that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons. 

The primary means toward this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations. This Office is responsible 

for the effective administration of Community Development Block 

Grant programs [CDBG], Home Investment Partnership [HOME], 

Brownfields Economic Development Initiative [BEDI], Self-Help 

Homeownership Opportunity Program [SHOP], Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids [HOPWA] and other HUD community 

development programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $93,770,000 for 

the Office of Community Planning and Development. This level is 

the same as the budget request and $5,900,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $286,110,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 300,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 300,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS [HOPWA] 

Program is designed to provide States and localities with resources 

and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies for 

meeting the housing needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS and 

their families. 

Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are distributed by 

formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of 

the number and incidence of AIDS cases reported to Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of the year preceding 

the appropriation year. The remaining 10 percent of funds are distributed through a national competition. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $300,100,000 for 

this program, which is $13,990,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee also 

requires HUD to allocate these funds in a manner that preserves 

existing HOPWA programs to the extent these programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with AIDS. 
148 

Since the program’s inception in 1992, HOPWA has assisted persons living with HIV/AIDS access and maintain housing and supportive services in order to avoid homelessness and improve access 

to health care. Research shows that housing is one of the greatest 

unmet needs of people living with HIV/AIDS, and that housing is 

critical to improving the health of persons living with the disease. 

The funding recommended by the Committee, and equal to the 

budget request, will allow providers to continue to address the 

unique housing and service needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS. 

The Committee supports HUD’s efforts to gather data on the performance outcomes of HOPWA funding. The Committee is also 

pleased by initial data included in the 2008 performance budget, 

which indicate that HUD exceeded its goal for the percentage of 

HOPWA facility residents who are maintaining stable housing. The 

Committee looks forward to more comprehensive data in HOPWA’s 

2009 performance budget. 

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $16,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive approach to rural housing and rural economic development issues. 

The account includes funding for capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants for Indian tribes, State housing finance 

agencies, State and local economic development agencies, rural 

nonprofits and rural community development corporations to pursue strategies designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,000,000 for 

the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal 

year 2008, which is $170,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The administration did not request funding for this program. 

The Committee does not accept the administration’s recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development plays an important role in HUD’s community development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan homes are 

renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens those in 

rural areas, as it does in urban communities. Furthermore, the 

Committee notes that the programs of the Office of Rural Housing 

and Economic Development are sufficiently different from the housing programs administered by the Department of Agriculture to 

warrant separate appropriations. Calculations of population to determine if an area is rural shall be based on the reality of an area, 

not the aggregation of the total population of a number of rural 

areas in an application for funds. 
149 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $3,771,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 3,036,570,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,060,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block 

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of 

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible 

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law 

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed 

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons 

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use 

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one 

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing 

stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for 

setasides. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,060,000,000 

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2008. This 

level is $1,023,430,000 more than the budget request and 

$288,100,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

For the third year in a row, the administration has sought to justify their recommendation to slash funding for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program by proposing legislative 

‘‘reforms’’ for the program. For fiscal year 2008, the administration’s budget proposes a funding cut of approximately 20 percent 

from the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee notes that the administrations ‘‘reform’’ legislation, which has yet to be introduced 

in either the House or the Senate, purports to ‘‘reform’’ the program by cutting assistance to affluent communities. The Committee notes, however that CDBG grantees are required by law to 

use at least 70 percent of their funding to benefit low and moderate-income persons. And, in reality, according to the HUD’s own 

budget documents, between 95 and 97 percent of CDBG funds benefited low- and moderate-income persons in fiscal year 2006. The 

Committee applauds the State and local governments for their targeted use of funds to assist persons in greatest need. The Committee believes that such aggressive targeting efforts makes it clear 

that the administration’s proposed ‘‘reforms’’ and reduced funding 

level would do nothing other than de-fund needed assistance in 

poor communities. The Committee recognizes that the CDBG program is one of the government’s most effective and flexible tools to 
150 

provide States and local communities with the resources to address 

such pressing needs. As such, the Committee rejects the administration’s proposed funding cut. The Committee includes $62,000,000 for grants to Indian tribes 

for essential economic and community development activities which 

is $4,580,000 more than the budget request and $2,600,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee includes language indicating funding made avail- able within this account, not to exceed $1,570,000, may be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. This is equal to the budget request. The Committee includes the administration’s proposal for 

$3,000,000 to be used for technical assistance activities within 

CDBG. 

The Committee also funds the Economic Development Initiative at $248,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives program at 

$40,000,000. 

The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows: 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Acadiana Outreach Center Housing Redevelopment; Lafayette, Louisiana ............. $400,000 Vitter/Landrieu 

Affordable Housing Revolving Loan Fund and Grant Pool, Scott County Housing 

Council, Davenport, IA. For affordable housing for those making lass than 80 

percent of the AMI.

400,000 Harkin/Grassley 

Akron-Canton Regional Foodbank, Akron, Ohio. The Akron-Canton Regional 

Foodbank for building renovations.

550,000 Brown 

Appalachia Service Project Home Repair Program, Southern West Virginia, for 

the repair of low and moderate income housing.

500,000 Byrd 

Appalachia Service Project, Chavies, KY to continue free home repair services to 

Kentucky’s low-income families.

200,000 Bunning 

Armory District Revitalization Planning, NY, for planning and design efforts 

within the City’s Armory District to aid in the redevelopment of this deteriorating corridor.

200,000 Schumer/Clinton 

Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Seattle, WA, Asian Counseling and Referral Service for construction of a new building.500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Audubon, Arkansas, Development of Little Rock Audubon Center, Little Rock, AR, 

to complete the second phase of development of the Little Rock Audubon 

Center.

200,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Audubon Mississippi, Pascagoula River Audubon Center, Moss Point, Mississippi, to construct a nature-based education facility that will contribute to 

the economic and community recovery on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

750,000 Cochran 

Beautiful Gate Outreach Center; Reaching Out and Saving Lives! Project; Wilmington, Delaware; for construction of a larger facility to be used for HIV 

testing services and prevention programs in New Castle County.

500,000 Carper/Biden 

Bell-Whitley Community Agency, Bell County, KY to complete construction of One 

Stop Training Center.

200,000 Bunning 

Bemidji Regional Airport, Bemidji, Minnesota, for the Bemidji JOBZ infrastructure development project to support light manufacturing facilities.500,000 Klobuchar 

Bernalillo County, NM; Metropolitan Assessment and Treatment Services Transitional Housing Facility; Bernalillo County, NM.250,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Bold Vision Capital Campaign for The Center for Family Resources: Georgia ....... 500,000 Isakson 

Borough of Collingswood, NJ, Collingswood Theatre Project, for comprehensive 

renovation of the Scottish Rite Theatre which is the focal point of the Borough’s revitalization program.

200,000 Menendez/Lautenberg 

Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Washington, Alexandria, VA, for the renovation of 

the Alexandria, Virginia, Branch Boys and Girls Club.

500,000 Warner/Webb 

Boys and Girls Club of Greater Manchester, NH, for renovation and expansion of 

facility.

300,000 Gregg 

Boys and Girls Club of Magic Valley, Twin Falls, Idaho, for construction of a 

Boys and Girls Club facility in the town of Buhl, Idaho.

250,000 Crapo 

Boys and Girls Clubs of Socorro County, Construction of Facility, Socorro, New 

Mexico, provide services and activities for youth throughout Socorro County, 

NM.

200,000 Domenici 
151 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Business Support Incubator, UAPB to complete construction of the Business 

Support Incubator to support job creation in Central Arkansas.

600,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

Calvin Coolidge State historic site in Plymouth Notch, Vermont for an expanded 

visitor’s center.

250,000 Sanders 

Cameron County, Texas; Los Fresnos Boys and Girls Club; Construction of a new 

Boys and Girls Club facility in Los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas.

500,000 Cornyn 

Camp Barnabas; Missouri ........................................................................................ 500,000 Bond 

Canyon Lake Revitalization Study, Rapid City, South Dakota ................................. 200,000 Thune 

Capital District YMCA, Schenectady, New York for construction of new YMCA at 

the side of a brownfield.

200,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Capitol Region RSVP/Volunteer Center of Rhode Island, RSVP Veterans Computer 

Center, Providence, RI for construction of a computer lab and purchase of 

equipment to train disabled veterans.

200,000 Reed 

Cather Foundation, Red Cloud, NE for the Moon Block Project for historic renovations.1,000,000 Hagel/Nelson, Ben 

Catholic Charities of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, to renovate recently acquired 

property in Makiki to establish permanent facilities for CCH’s Social Services 

Community Center.

200,000 Inouye 

CEDARS Youth Services, Lincoln, NE, CEDARS Children’s Crisis Center, for construction of the CEDARS Children’s Crisis Shelter.500,000 Nelson, Ben/Hagel 

Champlain Area Agency on Aging, Winooski, Vermont, for renovation Vermont 

senior centers.

250,000 Sanders 

Cherokee Strip Regional Heritage Center, Enid, OK ................................................ 200,000 Inhofe 

Cheyenne River Youth Project [CRYP], Teen Center Expansion, Eagle Butte, SD ... 200,000 Johnson 

Children’s Home Society, Expansion of Van Demark House and the Loving 

School, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

800,000 Thune/Johnson 

Chippewa Cree Tribe, Transportation and Rehabilitation of Malmstrom Air Force 

Base Housing Units, to transport and rehabilitate housing units from 

Malmstrom Air Force Base that would otherwise be destroyed to the Rocky 

Boy’s Reservation.

600,000 Tester 

City and County of Denver, CO, Homeless Veterans Supportive Housing, for supportive housing units for homeless veterans with special needs.300,000 Salazar 

City and County of San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Supportive and Transitional Housing Program, to develop 3,000 supporting housing units.800,000 Feinstein 

City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Supportive and Transitional 

Housing Program, San Francisco, CA: to finance the new construction of 

Mason Street, permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals.

200,000 Boxer 

City of Aberdeen, SD, Downtown revitalization ........................................................ 250,000 Johnson 

City of Albany, WiFi Service in Albany in Albany, New York, public access to 

technology project.

200,000 Clinton/Schumer 

City of Ardmore, OK for a Community Resources Center for low income, at risk 

citizens.

200,000 Inhofe 

City of Asheville, NC for Reid Center Renovation ................................................... 200,000 Burr 

City of Atchison, Kansas for Atchison Pedestrian Mall Redevelopment, Kansas ... 500,000 Roberts 

City of Bangor, Maine to support ongoing efforts to redevelop the Bangor Waterfront.350,000 Collins/Snowe 

City of Battle Ground, WA, Battle Ground Community Center, for a construction 

of a community center.

400,000 Murray 

City of Beaumont, Downtown Improvement Program, Beaumont, TX, for 

streetscape improvements.

200,000 Hutchison 

City of Belen, NM; Multipurpose Community Center Phase III; Belen, NM, to provide a centralized venue for community events and activities.750,000 Domenici 

City of Bellingham, WA, for the construction of the Bellingham Marine Trades 

Center.

250,000 Murray/Cantwell 

City of Bethlehem; South Bethlehem Workforce Training and Development Center; Bethlehem, PA—redevelopment, renovation and construction of a South 

Bethlehem Workforce Training and Development Center.

200,000 Specter 

City of Billings, Housing First Project, to build houses for homeless families ...... 400,000 Tester 

City of Billings, MT, Big Sky Economic Development Authority for historic preservation of the Cobb Field facility.500,000 Baucus/Tester 

City of Boise, Public Works Department, Boise, Idaho, for design and construction of city’s geothermal system expansion.250,000 Crapo 

City of Brewer, Maine for a redevelopment project on the site of the former 

Eastern Fine Paper Mill.

350,000 Collins/Snowe 
152 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

City of Browns Valley, Browns Valley, MN, to aid in recovery efforts of a major 

flood.

1,000,000 Coleman 

City of Buffalo, NY for the construction and renovation of the Buffalo Urban 

Arts Center.

200,000 Clinton/Schumer 

City of Canton, MS, to transform the Historic Canton High School into the Canton Municipal Government Complex.400,000 Cochran 

City of Central Falls, Central Falls Urban Revitalization Project, Central Falls, RI 

for the remediation of the Old Public Works Building and rehabilitation of 

city recreational facilities.

300,000 Reed 

City of College Park, MD for blight removal along the Route 1 Corridor ............... 700,000 Mikulski 

City of Columbus, IN, Golden Castings Foundry Demolition and Site Remediation 

Project to raze and remediate the site of the former Golden Castings Foundry 

for the demolition and environmental remediation costs of the Golden Castings Foundry site.

500,000 Bayh 

City of Columbus, Indiana, Mill Race Center for Active Adults for construction of 

the new 30,000-square-foot Mill Race Center for Active Adults (the Mill Race 

Center) that offers a wide variety of programs for senior citizens.

1,000,000 Bayh 

City of Conover, North Carolina, Broyhill Furniture Industrial Site Redevelopment, 

to demolish unusable manufacturing structures at the abandoned Broyhill 

furniture manufacturing plant and refur.

1,000,000 Dole 

City of Council Bluffs, Sunset Park North Neighborhood Redevelopment, Council 

Bluffs, IA, to redevelope the Katelman neighborhood.

500,000 Harkin/Grassley 

City of Detroit, MI, for infrastructure improvements to continue the revitalization 

of the Brush Park Historic District neighborhood.

280,000 Levin/Stabenow 

City of Eagle Mountain, Utah, Eagle Mountain Pony Express Regional Park for 

community development and park facility improvements for Eagle Mountain’s 

Pony Express Regional Park.

400,000 Hatch/Bennett 

City of Everett, WA, for the expansion of the Everett Senior Activity Center ......... 600,000 Murray 

City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville Attainable Housing Partnership, Fayetteville, Arkansas, to support the Fayetteville Attainable Housing Partnership.1,000,000 Lincoln/Pryor 

City of Florence, City of Florence Community Activity Center, SC, to provide for a 

new activity center.

200,000 Graham, L 

City of Gardiner, Maine for waterfront infrastructure ............................................. 200,000 Collins/Snowe 

City of Grand Junction, CO, to create park in LMI neighborhoord and/or eliminate slum and blight.300,000 Salazar 

City of Greenville, Community Recreation Centers, Greenville, SC for renovation 

of Greenville’s recreation outdated recreation centers.

200,000 Graham, L 

City of Grenada, Taylor Hall Renovation Project, Grenada, MS, for the renovation 

of the historic Taylor Hall.

250,000 Cochran 

City of Hamilton, Fulton Bridge Industrial Park, Hamilton, AL, Development of 

Industrial Park.

1,000,000 Shelby 

City of Hillsboro, Downtown Streetscape Project, Hillsboro, TX, for streetscape 

improvements.

200,000 Hutchison 

City of Humboldt, Iowa for Brownfields clean-up at Frit Industries site ............... 1,000,000 Grassley 

City of Kansas City, MO, to provide equipment to produce emerging plant-based 

economic development options for rural communities.

1,000,000 Bond 

City of Kearney, Kearney, NE, Peterson Senior Activity Center, for construction of 

the Peterson Senior Activity Center.

1,000,000 Nelson, Ben 

City of Lake Charles, Lake Charles, LA, America’s Wetland Center; to establish a 

center focused on increasing public awareness of the national importance of 

sustainable wetlands conservation, preservation, and restoration.

400,000 Landrieu/Vitter 

City of Las Vegas, NV, Post Office Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada, to complete 

renovation and transformation of the historic Post Office in downtown Las 

Vegas to a musuem on local history.

200,000 Reid 

City of Lincoln, NE for Antelope Valley Project Community Revitalization ............. 300,000 Hagel/Nelson, Ben 

City of Madison, MS, City of Madison Historic Gateway Project, Madison, MS to 

support the developments of a new town square and renovation of the Madison Co. Cultural Center.

1,000,000 Lott 

City of Marion, Iowa for Central Corridor Redevelopment Project .......................... 500,000 Grassley/Harkin 

City of Marshall, Memorial Hall Visitor and History Center Renovation, Marshall, 

TX, for the renovation of a historic building.

200,000 Hutchison 

City of Marshalltown, Iowa, for Grant Park Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative.200,000 Grassley/Harkin 

City of Medford; Santo Community Center—Phase III; Medford, OR; To create a 

gymnasium and large community classroom in Medford, OR.

400,000 Smith, G./Wyden 
153 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

City of Miami Beach, Florida; Miami Beach City Center Housing; Miami Beach, 

Florida; to maintain affordable housing for low-income residents of Miami 

Beach, Florida.

750,000 Martinez 

City of Milford, Connecticut, Eisenhower Park Renovation, for the rehabilitation 

of Eisenhower Park.

520,000 Lieberman 

City of Muncie, IN, Unity Center, Muncie, IN for a New community center ........... 500,000 Lugar/Bayh 

City of Oakland, Oakland Transit-Oriented Villages, Oakland, CA for the development of new housing.500,000 Feinstein 

City of Orlando, FL, Parramore Neighborhood Revitalization, to redevelop this 

distressed area of downtown Orlando into a safe and prosperous community 

with a mixture of residential and supportive accessory opportunities.

1,000,000 Nelson, Bill/Martinez 

City of Philadelphia, Green City Strategy, Philadelphia, PA to clean and green 

450 parcels—or about 450,000 square feet—of vacant land in Philadelphia 

using topsoil, grass, trees, and wood fencing.

300,000 Casey 

City of Pittsburgh, South Side Works, Pittsburgh; redevelop to enhance mobility.200,000 Casey 

City of Pittsfield, MA, Downtown Building Renovation and Rehabilitation ............ 250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

City of Pocatello, Pocatello, Idaho, for renovation and modernization of the Community Recreational Center.200,000 Crapo 

City of Port Townsend, WA, for the construction of the Northwest Maritime Center.450,000 Murray/Cantwell 

City of Portland, OR, Washington Monroe Community Center, for the design and 

construction of the community center and supporting elements.

1,000,000 Wyden/Smith, G. 

City of Portland; Regional Bridges to Housing Program; Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA; to develop affordable, permanent family-sized housing.600,000 Wyden/Smith, G. 

City of Quincy; Riverfront Infrastructure Improvement; Quincy, Illinois; to connect 

public facilities and public space in an economically distressed area in 

Quincy.

250,000 Durbin 

City of Reno, NV, Oliver-Montello Affordable Housing Project, to purchase vacant 

buildings in an effort to revitalize an area of northeast Reno and transition 

it from commercial to residential.

600,000 Reid 

City of Rocky Mount, NC for renovations to the former Booker T. Washington 

High School.

200,000 Burr 

City of Rugby, REAP Zones, Rugby, North Dakota to expand economic development opportunities in two REAP zones.400,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

City of Saginaw, MI, for acquisition and development of the Saginaw riverfront 

site.

1,000,000 Stabenow/Levin 

City of Sarasota, Florida; Robert L. Taylor Community Center, to rebuild the 

Robert L. Taylor Community Center, in the City of Sarasota’s distressed Newtown neighborhood.

250,000 Martinez 

City of Scranton; Scranton Housing and Community Space Initiative; Scranton, 

PA—planning, design and construction of apartments and community space, 

as part of a downtown revitalization initiative.

200,000 Specter 

City of Sparks, NV, Larry D. Johnson Community Center, to complete construction of a multi-purpose community center that will provide low income 

households and at-risk children with various educational classes.

300,000 Reid 

City of Spearfish, SD, Spearfish Industrial Park Infrastructure Construction ........ 250,000 Johnson 

City of Suffolk, Virginia, to renovate and restore the Phoenix Bank of 

Nansemond building for purposes of the Museum.

200,000 Warner/Webb 

City of Taunton, MA, to make structural and facility repairs to a low-income 

senior center.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

City of Temple, Downtown Redevelopment/Performing Arts Centre, Temple, TX, 

for downtown redevelopment.

200,000 Hutchison 

City of Tonasket, WA, Tonasket Community Center for building renovations ......... 200,000 Murray 

City of Waterloo, IA Neighborhood Revitalization Area ............................................ 500,000 Grassley 

City of Waterloo, IA, Chamberlain demolition project ............................................. 500,000 Grassley 

City of Watertown, SD, Uptown Revitalization ......................................................... 200,000 Johnson 

City of Wilson, North Carolina, City of Wilson Downtown Redevelopment Project, 

to clear blighted old tobacco barns and old office buildings that currently 

exist in Wilson and to construct new homes for owner-occupancy.

500,000 Dole 

City Year, Inc. City Year Headquarters Renovation, to assist City Year, Inc. in 

the renovation of their headquarters to allow them to better serve their lowincome students.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 
154 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Coastal Heritage Society, Savannah Battlefield Historic Paint and Coach Shops, 

Savannah, GA, for revitilization and repair of the Georgia Central Railway 

Historic Paint and Coach Shops.

600,000 Chambliss 

Coles County Council on Aging; Coles County, Illinois, Coles County Council on 

Aging Senior Center to construct a new senior center.

250,000 Durbin 

Community Chest, Virginia City, NV, Storey County Youth and Community Resource Center, to complete construction on a multi-purpose community resource center.

200,000 Reid 

Community Church of Christ, Sean Bell Memorial Field of Dreams, Community 

Youth Center, 167–04 108th Avenue, Jamaica, NY, for securing a site and/or 

purchasing a building for the Sean Bell Memorial Field of Dreams, Community Youth Center.

200,000 Schumer/Clinton 

CommunityWorks, Inc. for construction, including the finishing of the interior of 

the ExplorationWorks building.

650,000 Baucus 

Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ for the Camden Cooper Urban Development Initiative, for neighborhood housing redevelopment.200,000 Lautenberg 

County of Hudson, Jersey City, Redevelopment of Koppers Coke brownfield site, 

to transform the former Koppers Coke site in Kearny into a two million 

square foot industrial park that includes warehousing and distribution space.

400,000 Menendez/Lautenberg 

County of Umatilla, OR, Umatilla County Fairgrounds Exposition Center to replace the obsolete Umatilla County Exposition Center with an 18,000 squarefoot exhibition hall.

500,000 Smith, G./Wyden 

Covenant House Alaska for Covenant House Enhancement and Relocation, to 

construct a new and larger facility.

400,000 Murkowski 

Coventry Cares Community Center, Coventry Cares Community Center and 

Project Friends, Coventry, RI for the construction of an intergenerational complex comprised of human services, adult day care, and a senior center.

500,000 Reed 

Crossroads Rhode Island, Crossroads Rhode Island Child Care and Community 

Center, North Kingstown, RI for the construction of a child care and community center to provide both homeless families and neighborhood residents 

with affordable child care.

300,000 Reed 

Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch, Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch Treatment Facility 

Renovation, Minot, ND, to upgrade the mechanical heating and water lines, 

alarm system, and address accessibility concerns.

350,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

Daly Mansion Preservation Trust, to preserve and interpret the Daly Mansion, its 

buildings, grounds and the history it conveys.

400,000 Baucus 

Delaware Children’s Museum, Inc., for the construction of the Delaware Children’s Museum in Wilmington, Delaware, as part of the effort to remove 

blight and redevelop brownfields along the Christina Riverfront.

400,000 Carper/Biden 

Development Workshop, Inc., Upper Valley Industries Plant Facility, Idaho Falls, 

Idaho, for planning and design of a new facility to provide job services for 

people with disabilities.

500,000 Craig 

Dillon County, I–95 Industrial Park Spec Building, Dillon, South Carolina, to provide for the construction of an industrial park spec building near the City of 

Dillon on I–95.

200,000 Graham, L 

East Baltimore Development, Inc. (EBDI), Baltimore, MD, East Baltimore Development Project, to provide for workforce development, clean and safe programs, and infrastructure improvements.

200,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

Easter Seals Hawaii, Easter Seals Hawaii Kapolei Service Center, Hawaii, to 

construct a multi-program service center to provide therapy and early intervention services to children with physical and developmental disabilities, as 

well as programs for teens and adults with disabilities.

200,000 Inouye 

Easter Seals New Hampshire, Flood Repair and Renovation Project, Manchester, 

NH for reconstruction and renovation of Easter Seals New Hampshire building.

500,000 Sununu 

Edison Wetlands Association, Edison, NJ for the Dismal Swamp Conservation 

Area Trails Project, for the design and construction of trails for public recreation in the Dismal Swamp Conservation Area.

200,000 Lautenberg 

El Centro de la Raza, Seattle, WA, El Centro de la Raza for facility improvements.300,000 Murray 

Empower New Haven, Brownfield’s redevelopment initiative, New Haven, CT Redevelopment of a commercial venture and economic catalyst program.750,000 Lieberman 

Erie County; Erie Technology Incubator, Erie, PA for construction of the Erie 

Technology Incubator, which will promote economic development.

200,000 Specter 

Fairfax County, Fairfax, to develop and build 15–30 units of single room occupancy housing for the chronically homeless.500,000 Warner/Webb 
155 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

FAME Assistance Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for redevelopment of a blighted 

neighborhood.

500,000 Feinstein 

Fondren Revitilization Project, MS for the revitilization of the Fondren area in 

Jackson, MS.

750,000 Cochran 

Food Bank of Alaska Mat-Su Branch Building purchase, to allow the Food Bank 

of Alaska to purchase the collaborative anti-hunger facility in the Mat-Su 

Valley.

400,000 Murkowski 

Four Bands Community Fund, Inc., Revolving Loan Fund recapitalization, Eagle 

Butte, South Dakota.

250,000 Johnson 

Gambit Manufacturing and Business Technology Center, Orem, UT ...................... 200,000 Hatch 

Global Samaritan Resources, Abilene, Texas, to build a 25,000 square foot 

warehouse facility for receiving, storing and shipping of goods used for humanitarian aid.

200,000 Cornyn 

Goodrich-Gannett Neighborhood Center Cleveland, OH; Early Childhood/Family 

Services Center Campus Completion, to renovate and construct a new 

childcare/family services center.

500,000 Voinovich 

Goodwill Industries of Hawaii, Inc., Kapolei, HI, to construct the Goodwill Ohana 

Career and Learning Center to provide workforce development and job placement assistance to unemployed and under-employed low-income residents.

200,000 Inouye 

Grassroots Crisis Intervention Center, Inc., Columbia, MD, to provide the last 

stage of construction funding for the only emergency services shelter in Howard County, Maryland.

200,000 Mikulski 

Gregory House Programs, Honolulu, HI, to renovate housing for a tempory housing facility that provides housing and support services for individuals suffering from HIV/AIDS.

200,000 Akaka 

Harbor Homes Inc., Veterans Center, Buckingham Place, Nashua, NH, to provide 

transitional housing and support services for homeless veterans.

400,000 Sununu 

Hattiesburg Area Development Partnership, Old Hattiesburg High School, Hattiesburg, MS. For the renovation of the old high school.1,000,000 Lott/Cochran 

Hawaii Nature Center, Makiki Valley, Honolulu, Hawaii, Makiki Valley Watershed 

Education Center Project.

200,000 Inouye 

Herriman City, UT, to acquire and restore three histoically significant buildings 

in the community.

200,000 Bennett 

Holbrook Community Foundation in Harpswell, Maine for repair and renovation 

of Holbrook’s Wharf.

200,000 Collins/Snowe 

Homeward, Inc.; Equity for Rural Iowa-Revolving Loan Equity Fund; Iowa; Provide equity investment in rural communities.300,000 Harkin/Grassley 

Housing and Neighborhood Development Services, Inc., Orange, NJ for the Berg 

Hat Factory Commercial Arts Center, to build out a business incubator and 

community arts complex within a formerly abandoned hat factory in a low 

income neighborhood.

200,000 Lautenberg/Menendez 

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, Convent Hill Green Roof, to add a 

green roof to an affordable housing highrise for low-income seniors.

200,000 Kohl 

Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence, RI, for Building renovations.200,000 Reed 

International Peace Garden, International Peace Garden facility renovation, 

Dunseith, ND to renovate the facilities at this international garden.

450,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

Iowa Department of Economic Development, Des Moines, Iowa. To rehabilitate 

Main Street Communities.

800,000 Harkin 

Irvine Urban Outreach Center, Baltimore County, Maryland, for an urban outreach center.500,000 Cardin 

Jackson Medical Mall District Economic and Community Development, MS for 

housing development.

500,000 Cochran 

Jewish Foundation for Group Homes, Inc., Rockville, MD, Jewish Foundation for 

Group Homes, to acquire and renovate a single-family home into an Alternative Living Unit for three adults with developmental disabilities.

200,000 Mikulski 

Keehi Memorial Organization [KMO], Keehi Adult Day Health Center and Child 

Care Center, Honolulu, Hawaii for an intergenerational health and child care 

center that will provide services to low and moderate income children and 

the elderly.

300,000 Inouye 

Kenai Peninsula Food Bank, Soldotna, AK to construct an expansion of the existing Kenai Peninsula Food Bank.200,000 Murkowski 
156 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Kipahulu Community Association, Inc, Hana, Hawaii, Kipahulu Certified Kitchen, 

the project will enable low income community members to gather as an 

intergenerational community and create jobs in Native Hawaiian food harvesting and processing.

200,000 Inouye 

Lakeview Museum; Lakeview Museum construction; Peoria, Illinois; the museum 

will promote economic development and tourism in downtown Peoria.

250,000 Durbin 

Lamar County Commission, Lamar County Industrial Park, Lamar County, Alabama, Infrastructure Development for Industrial Park.800,000 Shelby 

Las Cruces Families and Youth, Inc., Las Cruces, NM, for construction of a new 

Transitional Living Program facility to house outpatient counseling for at risk 

youth and their families.

200,000 Bingaman 

Las Cumbres Community Services; Espanola, NM; for construction of new facility for community services.500,000 Domenici/Bingaman 

Longview Housing Authority, Longview, WA, Phoenix House, for construction of 

low-income housing.

500,000 Murray 

Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, for economic development of Illinois historic sites.500,000 Durbin 

Los Pueblos Community Council, Ribera, NM for Restoration and Preservation of 

Old Ribera School Building for the use of the building as community and 

cultural center.

400,000 Domenici 

Lutheran Settlement House; Low-Income Housing and Multi-Purpose Space; 

Philadelphia, PA—planning, design, redevelopment and construction of a facility, which will include affordable housing.

200,000 Specter 

Maine State Music Theatre in Brunswick, Maine to complete the renovation of 

rehearsal and office space in the newly acquired facility.

250,000 Collins/Snowe 

Marguerite’s Place, Nashua, New Hampshire, for the provision of transitional 

housing and supportive services to homeless women and children who have 

been victimes of domestic abuse.

300,000 Gregg 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, Rock Island, Illinois, for the renovation and expansion of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center.1,000,000 Obama 

McKinley County, New Mexico, Construction of a new regional juvenile crisis 

complex.

500,000 Bingaman 

Mercer County Commission; For repair and renovation of the Memorial Building, 

Princeton, WV.

1,000,000 Byrd 

Mercy Housing Incorporated, Mercy housing project in Holyoke, Massachusetts, 

to build 50 new homes for low-income senior citizens in Holyoke, Massachusetts.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Mid-America-Research and Development Foundation in Jefferson City, MO to 

provide equipment to produce emerging plant-based economic development 

options for rural communities.

500,000 Bond 

Missoula Food Bank Inc., Statewide Food Bank Transportation System, Missoula, 

MT to purchase eight new vehicles to rescue more local food.

450,000 Tester 

Mobile C.A.R.E. Foundation, Chicago, IL for the acquisition and operation of 

Asthma Vans.

300,000 Obama 

Mohawk Theater Restoration, North Adams, Massachusetts, to assist in the renovation of the Mohawk Theater and in the redevelopment of downtown North 

Adams.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Monmouth County, NJ for the NJ Children’s Advocacy Center for the construction 

of a children’s advocacy center for victims of child abuse.

200,000 Lautenberg/Menendez 

Montgomery County Government, Silver Spring, MD, Long Branch Pedestrian 

Safety Linkages and Way-Finding Community Markers, to provide for pedestrian safety in the Long Branch community.

400,000 Mikulski/Cardin 

Morningstar Community Development Corporation in Kansas City, MO, to construct a youth family center.1,000,000 Bond 

Morning Star Ranch in Florence, KS, to renovate facilities .................................... 850,000 Brownback 

Mount Airy USA; Mount Airy Urban Renewal Initiative; Philadelphia, PA—blight 

removal, development, and construction, as part of an urban renewal initiative.

200,000 Specter 

Municipality of Anchorage, Mountain View Revitalization Project, Anchorage, 

Alaska to restore buildings in the Mountain View area.

1,000,000 Stevens 

Murray-Calloway County Economic Development Corporation for the Industrial 

Park Acquisition and Development Project, to construct an industrial park.

2,000,000 McConnell 

Muskegon Heights Housing Commission, Muskegon Heights, MI, for community 

networking.

200,000 Stabenow/Levin 

Nathan Adelson Hospice, Adult Day Care Center, Henderson/Las Vegas, NV ........ 1,000,000 Ensign 
157 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

National Tropical Botanical Garden; Kalaheo, Kaua’i, Hawai’i; to construct a Native Hawaiian community learning center.200,000 Inouye 

Nebraska Innovation Center (Whittier) to renovate and improve the Whittier 

school for use as the Nebraska Innovation Center.

1,000,000 Nelson, Ben/Hagel 

Neighborhood House, Seattle, WA, Highpoint Neighborhood Center, for construction of a community center.600,000 Murray 

Neighbors for Kids, Depoe Bay, OR; to make an addition to their current facility.200,000 Smith, G./Wyden 

New Center Council Inc., Detroit, MI, for infrastructure improvements to enhance 

the economic viability of the Historic New Center.

1,000,000 Levin/Stabenow 

NH Division of Parks and Recreation, Robert Frost Farm, Derry, New Hampshire, 

for reconstruction.

300,000 Gregg 

Norman Economic Development Corp., Norman, OK for the construction of an 

engineering incubator that will create a new industrial center for Norman, OK.

200,000 Inhofe 

Northeast Community Center Association in Spokane, WA, Northeast Community 

Center, for facility construction.

500,000 Murray 

Northern Community Investment Corporation to expand and secure the region’s 

economy and public services by providing high speed, high technology 

connectivity throughout the region.

1,000,000 Gregg 

Northwest Tennessee Port Authority, Tiptonville, Tennessee for the construction 

of this new facility will promote growth in the region and take advantage of 

unique transportation opportunities that will tie in the port.

750,000 Alexander 

Ocean Community YMCA, Camp Watchaug Redevelopment, Westerly, RI for the 

renovations to create a state-of-the-art learning center.

200,000 Reed/Whitehouse 

OK Native American Cultural and Educational Authority for American Indian Cultural Center and Museum, Oklahoma City, OK.200,000 Inhofe 

Old Town Boys and Girls Club, Albuquerque, NM, for renovation of the existing 

Old Town Boys and Girls Club accompanied by construction of new areas for 

the Club.

500,000 Bingaman 

Opportunity Village, Las Vegas, NV, Employment and Training Center, to construct a third facility in Las Vegas for employment services for those with 

intellectual disabilities.

300,000 Reid 

Our Children’s Homestead, Central Iowa for Housing/Vocational Education Program for Foster Children—Aging Out; Iowa.300,000 Grassley/Harkin 

Our City Reading; Housing Initiative; Reading, PA—rehabilitation of abandoned 

houses and provide down payment assistance to home buyers.

200,000 Specter 

PACE Training and Evaluation Center, Morgantown, WV, for the construction of 

a new training facility.

1,500,000 Byrd 

Patterson Park Community Development Corp., Library Square Revitalization 

Project, Baltimore, MD, to provide for the revitalization of an under-used area 

of Baltimore City.

300,000 Mikulski 

Pearl City Foundation, Pearl City, Hawaii, Momilani Community Center Adult Day 

Care and Child Care Facility Construction Project, to construct a new facility 

of 6,700 square feet for the Elderly Daycare/Day Health and an Early Educational Daycare of the Head Start Program.

200,000 Inouye 

Penobscot Theatre Company in Bangor, Maine to renovate the Bangor Opera 

House.

200,000 Collins/Snowe 

Port of Gold Beach, OR, Port of Gold Beach High Dock Rehabilitation, to rebuild 

the High Dock at the Port of Gold Beach that provides critical infrastructure 

for water-dependent and water-related commercial and retail activities.

500,000 Smith, G./Wyden 

Preble Street in Portland, Maine for the development of Florence House, a comprehensive center for homeless women.200,000 Collins/Snowe 

Providence Connections, Inc.; Providence Family Support Center; Pittsburgh, PA 

for planning, renovation and redevelopment of the Providence Family Support 

Center.

200,000 Specter 

Provo City Downtown Parking Structure Project, Utah ............................................ 200,000 Hatch 

Rainier Vista Boys and Girls Club, Seattle, WA, Rainier Vista Boys and Girls 

Club for facility construction.

500,000 Murray 

Randolph County YMCA, IN to build a new licensed child care facility for 93 

children.

200,000 Lugar 

Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 30th Street Industrial Corridor-Milwaukee, Wisconsin for blight elimination and redevelopment 

of the 30th Street Corridor.

750,000 Kohl 

Redevelopment Authority of the City of Racine, WI, for blight removal and reconstruction efforts.200,000 Kohl 
158 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

RurAL CAP, Inc. for Rural Alaska Community Head Start Facility Upgrades ......... 200,000 Murkowski 

Saginaw Depot Preservation Corporation, Saginaw, MI, to restore the historic 

Potter Street storefronts and add street enhancements.

1,000,000 Levin/Stabenow 

Salina City, to build a senior citizens and civic center for the three communities 

in the area of Salina, UT.

750,000 Bennett 

Salvation Army Alaska Division for Anchorage Salvation Army Family Enrichment 

Center to build a family shelter, a commercial-grade kitchen.

400,000 Murkowski 

San Bernardino Boys & Girls Club, Boys & Girls Club Improvements, San 

Bernardino, CA, for facility expansion.

300,000 Boxer 

San Francisco Museum and Historical Society, Redevelopment of the Old Mint 

facility, San Francisco, CA.

500,000 Boxer/Feinstein 

Santa Clara Pueblo, Construction of Regional Adult Day Care Center, Espanola, 

NM, Regional Adult Day Care Center.

500,000 Domenici 

Seattle Nisei Veterans Committee, Seattle, WA, Nisei Veterans Memorial Hall, for 

construction.

250,000 Murray 

Second Harvest Food Bank of East Central Indiana, Inc., for Food Bank Capital 

Improvements Project.

1,000,000 Lugar 

Smithfield City, UT, to construct a new city complex ............................................. 750,000 Bennett 

Souhegan Boys and Girls Club, Milford, NH, for renovations and reconstruction 

after severe flood damage.

200,000 Gregg 

South Dakota State Fair Foundation, Huron, SD, upgrade South Dakota State 

Fair Open Class Beef Complex and Hippodrome.

250,000 Johnson 

Southern Cultural Heritage Foundation, Vicksburg, MS; for the renovation of the 

Southern Cultural Heritage Center Auditorium.

200,000 Cochran 

Southern Nevada Convention Training Trust, Las Vegas, NV, Convention and 

Trade Training Center, to construct a facility in Las Vegas to provide trade 

training for the convention industry to students who are unemployed, underemployed, or in transition.

400,000 Reid 

Southern West Virginia Multicultural Museum and Community Center, Raleigh 

County, West Virginia, for the establishment of a multicultural museum and 

community center in Beckley, WV.

200,000 Byrd 

Southside Institutions Neighborhood Alliance, Southside Institutions Neighborhood Alliance Blight Removal, Hartford, CT, for activities associated the 

acquistion, removal, and redevelopment of blighted properties in Hartford, 

Connecticut.

200,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Spaulding Fibre Remediation and Demolition, NY to demolish the structures and 

remediate any environmental problems and develop new infrastructure on the 

site.

1,500,000 Schumer/Clinton 

Springfield Boys and Girls Club; Community Center; Springfield, IL; Planning, 

development, land acquisition, and construction costs for a new community 

center in Springfield.

250,000 Durbin 

St. Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce Inc., Regional Rural Broadband Expansion, Canton, NY. To expand broadband access to rural areas.200,000 Clinton/Schumer 

St. Louis Area Food Bank, St. Louis County, MO, Foodbank Warehouse Acquisition Project.500,000 Bond 

Stanford Settlement, Inc. Carl R. Hansen Teen Center, Sacramento, CA. Funds 

will be used to construct a new teen center facility for at-risk youth in the 

northern area of Sacramento, CA.

200,000 Boxer 

Synergy Services, Inc., in Kansas City, MO, to design and construct a homeless 

youth shelter and campus.

750,000 Bond 

Syracuse City, Utah for Syracuse City Utah Municipal Center Expansion Project .. 300,000 Hatch 

Tallahatchie County Board of Supervisors, Sumner, MS, Tallahatchie County 

Courthouse Restoration, for the restoration of the Tallahatchie County Courthouse.

750,000 Cochran 

TechTown, Detroit, MI for renovations for historic structures for economic development.200,000 Stabenow/Levin 

The Arc of Hilo, Arc of Hilo Client Support Services Facility Construction, in Hilo, 

HI, to construct a multi-purpose job training, day program, and community 

center for people with disabilities.

400,000 Akaka/Inouye 

The ARC of Madison County Facilities Expansion, AL ............................................. 250,000 Shelby 

The Children’s Center of the Cumberlands, Scott County, Tennessee, expand the 

Children’s Center and allow expanded service and care for abused children.

250,000 Alexander 

The Children’s Home, Children’s Home [CH] Residential Facility Improvement 

Initiative, Cromwell, Connecticut, for the redesign of residential facilities.

200,000 Dodd/Lieberman 
159 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

The City of Newport News, VA, Jefferson Park Revitalization, VA, for acquisition, 

demolition, relocation activities and capital improvements of dilapidated 

housing.

1,000,000 Webb/Warner 

The City of Northampton, Massachusetts, Northampton State Hospital Renovation, to assist the City of Northampton in developing more than 200 units of 

affordable housing.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

The Civic Center of Moreau, Inc. The Moreau Community Center, Campaign to 

Establish the New Regional Community Center at Moreau, South Glens Falls, 

NY, for the construction of the Regional Community Center at Moreau which 

will provide dramatically improved educational, recreational, and community 

service facilities as well as substantial economic development.

200,000 Schumer/Clinton 

The Greater Boston Food Bank, Boston, Massachusetts, for the development of a 

new facility to distribute food to Massachusetts families in need.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

The Ministry of Caring Inc.; Mary Mother of Hope House I—Renovation Project, 

Wilmington, DE, to renovate the Mary Mother of Hope House which provides 

housing and support services from homeless women 18 and older.

1,000,000 Biden/Carper 

The Westfield Boys and Girls Club, Westfield, Massachusetts, Westfield Boys 

and Girls Club, for renovation and repair.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

TLC for Children and Families, Olathe, KS, for an emergency shelter and social 

services for children and youth in the Kansas City.

750,000 Brownback 

To Bridgeton Board of Education, Bridgeton, NJ for the restoration of the historic Bridgeton High School facility which was built during the New Deal by 

the WPA.

200,000 Lautenberg 

To Paterson Board of Education, Paterson, NJ, Hinchliffe facility, for the restoration of the historic Hinchliffe facility.200,000 Lautenberg 

To the Goodwill Rescue Mission, Newark, NJ for the renovation of transitional 

living facilities.

200,000 Lautenberg 

Tom Green County, San Angelo, TX, for the relocation and expansion of the Tom 

Green County Library, the only public library in the region.

200,000 Hutchison 

Town of Bolton, MS, Bolton Municipal Building, for renovation of the Bolton Municipal Building.200,000 Cochran 

Town of Colebrook, Mohawk River Retaining Wall, Colebrook, NH, repair retaining 

wall and two water mains along the Mohawk River.

400,000 Sununu 

Town of Colmar Manor, Colmar Manor Community Center, Colmar Manor, Maryland, to construct a multi-use community facility that combines community 

organizations and municipal services.

600,000 Cardin 

Town of Goodman, MS for the remodeling of a historic building .......................... 200,000 Cochran 

Town of Manchester, Connecticut, Spruce Street Youth Center, Manchester, Connecticut, for construction activities associated with the conversion of an old 

firehouse facility into a municipal youth center.

200,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Town of Marietta, MS, for the construction of a multi-purpose facility ................. 200,000 Cochran 

Town of Vernon, Amberbelle Mill Historic Restoration Initiative, Vernon, Connecticut, for exterior and interior upgrades to the historic Amberbelle Mill facility.

200,000 Dodd/Lieberman 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Turtle Mountain Youth Center, Belcourt, ND 

to construct a youth center for Native Americans on the reservation.

500,000 Conrad/Dorgan 

United Methodist Youthville, Dodge City, Kansas to provide a central kitchen/ 

dining facility for the campus in compliance with federal regulations.

300,000 Roberts 

United Way for Southeastern Michigan, Detroit, MI, to construct a training center for non-profit social service providers.400,000 Stabenow/Levin 

United Way of Treasure Valley, Boise, Idaho, for construction of a Community 

Detox Center.

250,000 Crapo 

Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, Roxbury, Massachusetts, to assist in 

the expansion of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts facility expansion.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 

Urban League of Rhode Island, South Providence Neighborhood Center Building 

Project, Providence, RI for the construction of a three-story, 9,000 square foot 

addition to house a community meeting room, senior center, and office space.

500,000 Reed 

Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VT, for affordable housing and community development linked with land conservation and historic preservation.2,600,000 Leahy 

Veterans Benefits Clearinghouse, Roxbury, MA, Veterans Benefits Clearinghouse 

renovation, to renovate the Veterans Benefits Clearinghouse facility to allow 

the non-profit organization to expand its programs to assist low-income veterans across Massachusetts.

250,000 Kennedy/Kerry 
160 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Waipahu Jack Hall Memorial Housing Corporation, Oahu, HI, to renovate, repair, 

and maintain the Kunia Village Housing Complex and to bring it in compliance with Honolulu City and County housing codes.

300,000 Inouye 

Washington County Free Library, New Washington County Free Library Branch in 

Boonsboro, MD, to facilitate design and construction of new library branch.

200,000 Mikulski 

Western Elmore County Recreation District, Mountain Home Community Center 

Complex, Mountain Home, Idaho, for planning, design, and construction of an 

energy efficient, multi-use community center.

500,000 Craig 

Where to Turn, Hands and Hearts, Staten Island, NY for the construction of a 9/ 

11 living memorial.

600,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Wichita, KS for the 21st Street Industrial Corridor Revitalization Plan and PreEngineering Designs.300,000 Roberts 

Wilmington Housing Authority, Wilmington, DE, Sprinkler Retrofit of High Rise 

Building, to retrofit the Crestview Apartments with a fire suppression sprinkler system.

1,000,000 Biden/Carper 

Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, Center for Excellence, Milwaukee, WI, 

to complete renovation of the Center of Excellence for the assessment, preparation and placement of job-ready candidates for careers in skilled trades 

and industries.

250,000 Kohl 

World Impact, St. Louis, MO, in St. Louis, to renovate the former YMCA North 

Building.

750,000 Bond 

YMCA of Spokane, WA, YMCA/YWCA of Spokane, for facility construction ............. 500,000 Murray/Cantwell 

YMCA of Tacoma-Pierce County, Tacoma, WA, YMCA of Tacoma-Pierce County for 

facility construction.

250,000 Murray 

YWCA of Greater Los Angeles, Union Pacific Child Development and Family Center, Los Angeles, CA: for the construction of the new Union Pacific Child Development and Family Center.

200,000 Boxer 

The neighborhood initiatives are as follows: 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Bering Straits Native Corporation, Nome, Alaska, funds will be used for the construction and expansion of the site pad for the quarry.$750,000 Stevens 

Center for Planning Excellence; Baton Rouge, LA to continue to coordinate urban 

and rural planning efforts in South Louisiana.

2,000,000 Landrieu 

Central Wyoming College Foundation; Intertribal Education and Community Center; Riverton, Wyoming; to complete construction of and purchase equipment 

for the Intertribal Education and Community Center.

600,000 Enzi 

City of Forsyth, Georgia to renovate and repair the buildings on the former Tift 

College campus so that it will be ready to house the hundreds of employees 

of the State Department of Corrections.

500,000 Isakson 

City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, Neighborhood Block Redevelopment, to purchase, 

demolish and refurbish blighted properties to eliminate overcrowding, reduce 

crime and stablize a struggling neighborhood.

1,500,000 Kohl 

City of Rochester, NY, Rochester Lead Hazard Prevention Program, to enhance 

lead hazard assessments, inspections, remediation training and outreach to 

expedite lead hazard remediation in public housing.

200,000 Clinton/Schumer 

Emergency Demolition of the Former Swift Plant (KD Station) in Sioux City, 

Iowa.

1,000,000 Grassley/Harkin 

Hiawatha Village Low Income Housing Development Project, Seattle, WA ............. 750,000 Murray 

homeWORD, Missoula, MT to develop rental housing that is affordable to working families in Missoula, MT.1,000,000 Baucus/Tester 

John C. Stennis Institute for Capacity Development Initiative, MS ........................ 1,000,000 Cochran 

Kitsap County Resources Community Services Center Construction, Bremerton, 

WA .

200,000 Murray/Cantwell 

Miami Dade Collect, FL, Cuban American Historical Museum at the Miami Dade 

College Freedom Tower, Florida.

500,000 Martinez 

NeighborhoodsNOW, Community Foundation of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, 

KS.

2,000,000 Brownback 

Passage Point Transitional Housing Construction, King County, WA ...................... 500,000 Murray 

Poplar Bluff Historic Depot Restoration; Missouri ................................................... 250,000 Bond 

Robinson Film Center Building; Shreveport, Louisiana ........................................... 400,000 Vitter 

Salishan HOPE VI Redevelopment Project, Tacoma, WA ......................................... 1,500,000 Murray 
161 

Project description Committee recommendation Requested by 

Starr Commonwealth of Ohio, Van Wert and Columbus, Ohio, Starr Commonwealth facilities renovations for positive environments where children flourish.700,000 Brown 

Washington State Housing Finance Commission, Seattle, Washington, for capacity building.1,000,000 Murray 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program costs Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Appropriations, 2007 .................................................................................................. $3,715,000 $137,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ............................................................................................... .............................. ..............................

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 6,000,000 275,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan 

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,000,000 for 

the program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee 

program. This amount is $2,287,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. The administration recommended no funding for this program. 

Of the funding provided, $6,000,000 is for credit subsidy costs to 

guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal 

year 2008. 

The Committee recognizes that for every $1 of section 108 funding, $3 is leveraged in private investment. This additional private 

investment will benefit revitalization efforts across the country. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to streamline the section 

108 loan guarantee process to ensure that communities in need 

have access to this effective financing tool more promptly. 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $9,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment 

program. This program provides competitive economic development 

grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for qualified 

brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance with section 

108(q) selection criteria. The program supports the cleanup and 

economic redevelopment of contaminated sites. 
162 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for 

the Brownfields Redevelopment program which is $100,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. The administration recommended 

no funding for this program. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,757,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,966,640,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,970,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and units of local government 

for the purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people. Eligible activities include 

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing and, also, construction of 

housing. To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability 

strategy. There is a 25 percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are 

experiencing fiscal distress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,970,000,000 

for the Home Investment Partnership Program. This amount is 

$3,360,000 more than the budget request and $212,750,000 more 

than the comparable level for fiscal year 2007. The Committee does 

not provide funding for the American Dream Downpayment Fund 

as such downpayment assistance is already an eligible purpose for 

funding made available through the HOME program. 

Technical Assistance.—The Committee includes $15,000,000 for 

technical assistance. This amount is $5,100,000 more than the 

budget request and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for qualified nonprofit intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community Housing 

and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining 

$5,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical assistance to 

HOME participating jurisdictions. 

Housing Counseling.—The Committee provides $150,000,000 for 

housing counseling activities within the HOME account. This 

amount is $108,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee is concerned about the impact of the rapidly expanded use of subprime and other mortgage products that have 

placed millions of Americans in jeopardy of losing their home. According to the Mortgages Bankers Association, new foreclosure 

starts rose to another record level in the first quarter of 2007. Falling property values in some States are contributing to this spike. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to use every available re-
163 

source within the Department to address this housing worsening 

crisis. 

In order to help address this issue, the Committee has increased 

funding for housing counseling by more than 350 percent for fiscal 

year 2008. Within the amount provided, $100,000,000 shall be exclusively targeted on individuals and families who are currently in 

foreclosure or are facing the immediate prospect of losing their 

homes through foreclosure. Such funding may also be targeted on 

individuals and families who may need to modify or refinance their 

loan to prevent the possibility of foreclosure. Such activities may 

include community-based outreach efforts to contact borrowers. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to issue a Notice of Funding 

Availability for these funds within 60 days of enactment of this act. 

Eligible entities should include national and regional intermediaries including qualified fair housing enforcement organizations with experience providing delinquency, default and foreclosure counseling and prevention. Eligible entities should be able 

to provide immediate assistance, especially in areas where the Secretary determines the greatest needs exist. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $49,390,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 69,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program [SHOP] funds 

assist low-income homebuyers willing to contribute ‘‘sweat equity’’ 

toward the construction of their houses. The funds will increase 

nonprofit organization’s ability to leverage funds from other sources 

and produce at least 2,000 new homeownership units. In 2006, 

SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was previously funded as 

a set-aside within the Community Development Fund. This account 

also includes funding for the National Community Development 

Initiative for grantees to develop the capacity of nonprofit community development entities to undertake community development 

and affordable housing projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the Self-Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program, which is $300,000 more than 

the budget request and $20,610,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 

level. The Committee has included $26,500,000 for the Self-Help 

Homeownership Opportunity Program authorized under section 11 

of the Housing Opportunity Extension Act of 1996. 

The Committee recommends $33,500,000 for capacity building as 

authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993. 

The Committee notes that funding provided under this section requires a statutory 3 to 1 match to further leverage resources to assist more communities. In fiscal year 2006, the Local Initiative 

Support Coalition and the Enterprise Community Partners leveraged over $8 for every one Federal dollar provided by this program. 

The Committee includes statutory language allowing up to 
164 

$5,000,000 under this program to be used for capacity building activities in rural areas. 

The Committee provides additional funding for programs to further enhance capacity building activities to maximize Federal investment for housing and community development activities. The 

Committee has provided $3,000,000 for Housing Assistance Council 

(Domenici/Leahy/Inouye); $2,000,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council (Johnson/Domenici); $2,000,000 for the Housing Partnership Network (Reid/Mikulski); and $3,000,000 for the 

Raza Development Fund of La Raza (Dodd/Martinez/Lieberman/ 

Obama/Landrieu/Kerry/Bingaman/Casey/Menendez/Brown/Clinton/ 

Boxer/Durbin). 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,441,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,585,990,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,585,990,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to 

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and 

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, 

and supportive services to homeless persons and families. The 

emergency grant is a formula funded grant program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter plus care programs are competitive 

grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal support to one 

of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary 

to help those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward 

self-sufficiency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,585,990,000 

for Homeless Assistance Grants for fiscal year 2008. This amount 

is equal to the budget request and $144,390 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. Of the amount provided $8,000,000 is for technical 

assistance and data analysis and $2,475,000 is for the Department’s working capital fund. Sufficient funding has also been included to fully fund Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual basis. 

The Committee has continued bill language that: (1) requires not 

less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding renewal 

costs, shall be for permanent housing for both individuals and families; (2) requires the renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts on an annual basis if the contract meets certain requirements; (3) requires a 25 percent match for social services; and (4) 

requires all homeless funding recipients to coordinate and integrate 

their programs with other mainstream and targeted social programs. 
165 

The Committee has not included the transfer of funds to the Department of Labor [DOL] for the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative as requested in the budget. The budget documentation provided little 

detail on how this money would be used to address the housing 

needs of returning prisoners. Moreover, the Committee believes 

that DOL is not the appropriate agency to address housing issues. 

Rapid Re-Housing Demonstration Program.—The Committee has 

provided $25,000,000 for the Secretary to conduct a demonstration 

program on the effectiveness of rapid re-housing programs in reducing the number of homeless families. Every year, there are over 

600,000 families that experience homelessness in the United 

States. Since there are few alternatives available to these families, 

many of whom are victims of domestic violence, they often end up 

in emergency shelters. They now spend more time in shelters than 

may be necessary. These extended shelter stays can be harmful for 

families and especially for children according to HUD’s own Annual 

Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR]. Recent research has also indicated that the traditional approaches to serving homeless families may not be effectively addressing the needs of these families, 

and may be more costly. Therefore, HUD must evaluate new methods aimed at reducing family homelessness. 

Rapid re-housing is one approach that is showing promise in effectively reducing family homelessness. This approach minimizes 

the amount of time that families are homeless by quickly moving 

them out of shelters and into safe and stable housing. Rapid rehousing programs provide families with housing placement services, short-term housing assistance, and follow up case management. Research on the effectiveness of this approach, though promising, is limited. The Committee believes that further evaluation of 

rapid re-housing programs will better inform policies related to 

homeless families. 

The Committee directs HUD to select a limited number of sites 

to receive funding for this demonstration program as a part of the 

Homeless Assistance Grants competition. In order to have a successful demonstration, HUD should consider the following factors 

in selecting sites: proven experience in rapid re-housing, performance of the Continuum of Care, and geographic diversity. Selected 

sites should have programs that minimize the amount of time that 

families are homeless, provide families with housing placement 

services, short-term housing assistance, including up to 12 months 

of rental assistance, and provide case management services to ensure that families are stably housed and connected to mainstream 

services. In addition, the Secretary may consider the ability of 

projects to leverage support from other sources. 

The Committee has also included language that allows the Secretary to use up to $3,000,000 to conduct an evaluation of the demonstration program. It is critical to gather information and data on 

the effects of this approach in reducing family homelessness, which 

should help HUD develop a long-term strategy to end family homelessness. 

Goal to End Chronic Homelessness.—The administration has 

stated a goal to end chronic homelessness by 2012 and in fact has 

targeted resources within the Homeless Assistance program to support projects that serve the chronically homeless. The Committee 
166 

continues to support this effort, which has enabled homeless providers to better serve this vulnerable population, with researchbased and results-driven strategies. It is important that the Committee understand the progress that HUD and communities across 

the country are making toward meeting this important goal. Currently, the Committee has no point of comparison that demonstrates a reduction in the number of chronic homeless persons. 

Therefore, as part of the Department’s 2009 performance budget, 

HUD is directed to include verifiable and updatable data that demonstrates how the funding provided through the Homeless Assistance Grants program is effectively reducing the number of chronically homeless in order to meet the administration’s goal of ending 

chronic homelessness. 

Permanent Supportive Housing.—The Committee continues language that requires 30 percent of funds be set aside for permanent 

supportive housing for individuals and families. This will support 

Federal, State and local efforts to increase the supply of permanent 

housing until the estimated need of 150,000 units is met. The Committee continues to believe that permanent supportive housing is 

critical to reducing homelessness for both individuals and families. 

Annual Homeless Assessment Report [AHAR].—In February 2007, 

HUD released the first Annual Homeless Assessment Report. This 

report stemmed from congressional directives begun in 2001 that 

charged the Department with collecting homeless data through the 

implementation of a new Homeless Management Information System [HMIS]. The AHAR report included HMIS data, information 

provided by Continuums of Care, and a count of sheltered and 

unsheltered persons from one night in January 2005. This report 

provided a better understanding of the Nation’s homeless—who 

they are, where they are located, and the services they are accessing. The Committee applauds these efforts to collect and analyze 

data on the Nation’s homeless. This is an important tool to evaluate fiscal and policy decisions related to homelessness in the 

United States. 

The report did, however, highlight some flaws in the HMIS data. 

This underscored the need for HUD to continue to use some of the 

technical assistance funding provided to ensure the participation in 

HMIS by all grantees, and to make improvements to the data. The 

Committee requests that HUD submit the AHAR report by March 

21, 2008. The Committee further hopes that HUD’s efforts to increase participation in the HMIS effort will lead to improved information about and understanding of the Nation’s homeless. 

Renewal Costs.—The Committee reiterates the directive included 

in the conference report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005 (House Report 108–792) regarding out-year costs of renewing 

HUD’s permanent housing programs. The Department should continue to include 5-year projects, on an annual basis, for the cost of 

renewing the permanent housing component of the Supportive 

Housing program and the Shelter Plus Care program in its fiscal 

year 2009 budget justifications. 
167 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING, FEDERAL

HOUSING COMMISSIONER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $3,260,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 3,420,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,420,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner, provides program policy and guidance, as well as providing 

oversight for all of housing’s programs and regulatory functions. 

The office staff coordinates inquires and concerns from partners in 

the housing industry, Congress, and from the American public regarding housing programs. The staff also leads and coordinates 

operational issues and procedures to assure that housing, HUD and 

other Government-wide policies and regulations are consistently 

followed throughout all of housing’s offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,420,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing 

Commissioner. This level is the same as the budget request and 

$160,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF HOUSING

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $326,550,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 351,560,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 351,560,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

programs, housing counseling grant program, and assisted housing 

programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $351,560,000 for 

the Office of Housing. This level is the same as the budget request 

and $25,010,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 
168 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $734,580,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 575,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 735,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the elderly under 

section 202. Under this program, the Department provides capital 

grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors and provides project-based rental 

assistance [PRAC] to support operational costs for such units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $735,000,000 for the section 202 program. This level is $160,000,000 more than the 

budget request and $420,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for service coordinators 

and for the continuation of existing congregate service grants; up 

to $24,750,000 for the conversion of projects to assisted living housing or for substantial rehabilitation for emergency capital repairs; 

$20,000,000 for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering work, site control and planning activities. The Committee includes language allowing up to $1,400,000 to be transferred to the 

Working Capital Fund. The Committee has not provided the $25,000,000 sought in the 

budget for a Leverage Financing Demonstration program. The 

Committee notes that HUD has provided very little supporting documentation as to the need for this program. Moreover, the initiative has little or no support from the practitioners working within 

the section 202 program. Moreover, it appears that the program 

would seek to demonstrate activities that could already be funded 

under the regular section 202 program. 

The Committee is again dismayed by the administration’s efforts 

to slash funding targeted on the housing needs of low-income elderly citizens. According to a recent survey by the American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], there are at least 10 seniors waiting for every available section 202 unit that becomes available. 

This estimate does not consider properties that have closed their 

waiting list or seniors that have been discouraged to apply for the 

program because of the low turnover and long waiting lists that are 

common for this program. The 2005 Affordable Housing Needs Report from HUD states that, between 2003 and 2005, the number 

and percentage of elderly renters with very low incomes and worst 

case housing needs by 9.6 percent to 3.58 million. The number of 

worst case seniors has increase by 1.5 percent to 1.291 million. 

The Committee notes that, while improvements have been made 

over the last year, much more needs to be done by HUD to expedite 

the process of approving project applications under the 202 program. The Committee is hopeful that HUD will continue to make 

progress in this area. The Committee also expects HUD to use a 

portion of this appropriation for necessary emergency repairs to 

preserve this essential housing stock. 
169 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $236,610,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 125,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 237,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for housing for the persons with 

disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the Department 

provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for persons with disabilities. 

Up to 25 percent of the funding may be made available for tenantbased assistance under section 8 and provides project-based rental 

assistance [PRAC] to support operational costs for such units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $237,000,000 for 

the section 811 program. This level is $112,000,000 more than the 

budget request and $390,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

HUD is directed to ensure all tenant-based assistance made available under this account shall remain available for persons with disabilities upon turnover. The Committee has provided $74,745,000 

for incremental section 8 vouchers under this program. In addition, 

section 811 funds may be used for inspections by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC] and for related inspection activities. HUD is directed to submit a budget to the Committees on Appropriations before funding REAC inspections. The Committee includes language indicating funding made available within this account, not to exceed $600,000, may be transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund. 

This is the fourth consecutive year that the President’s budget 

proposed deep cuts to the capital advance/project-based side of the 

811 program. Both the House and Senate have consistently rejected 

these cuts which would undermine a program already burdened 

with significant renewal costs. 

According to Priced Out in 2006, a recent study of income and 

rental costs for people with the most significant and long term disabilities, people receiving Federal Supplemental Security Income 

[SSI] benefits had incomes equal to only 18.2 percent of median income in 2006. Over 4 million non-elderly adults receive SSI and it 

can be conservatively estimated that more than 1 million of these 

persons need permanent supportive housing. The current section 

811 program produces fewer than 1,000 new units per year. 

The Committee recommends no new funding for the section 811 

mainstream program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee, once 

again, urges HUD to issue programmatic guidance for the section 

811 tenant-based program. Such guidance should include criteria 

for targeting of assistance consistent with 811 supportive housing 

eligibility criteria and retention of a meaningful role for nonprofit 

organizations. As in the case of the section 202 program, the Committee has not provided funding for a Leveraged Financing Demonstration program, since the program apparently lacks both jus-
170 

tification and support within the section 811 practitioner community. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $26,136,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 27,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides amendment funding for housing assisted 

under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,600,000 for HUD-assisted, 

State-aided, non-insured rental housing projects. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 

HUD to establish a revolving fund for the collection of rents in excess of the established basic rents for section 236 projects. Subject 

to appropriations, HUD is authorized to transfer excess rent collection received after 1978 to the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 

as the repository for the excess rental charges appropriated from 

the Rental Housing Assistance Fund; these funds will continue to 

offset flexible subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures 

to support affordable housing projects. The language is designed to 

allow surplus funds in excess of allowable rent levels to be returned to project owners only for purposes of the rehabilitation and 

renovation of projects. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget request, 2008 ............................................................................. 16,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the act. 
171 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,000,000 to support the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 

Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 

request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-item 

expenses for the manufactured housing program in its proposed fiscal year 2007 budget request, and encourages the HUD to continue 

doing so in its future budgets. In addition, the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its expenditures for this program in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct 

loans 

Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Administrative expenses including contract administrators 

Appropriations, 2007 ......................................................... $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $413,424,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ...................................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 428,850,000 

Committee recommendation .............................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 1 77,400,000 

1 Administrative expenses for MMI are funded within the Office of Housing. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Limitation on direct loans Limitation on guaran- teed loans 

Administrative 

expenses including 

contract administra- tors 

Program costs 

Appropriations, 2007 .......................... $50,000,000 $45,000,000,000 $307,812,341 $8,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ....................... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 307,197,000 8,600,000 

Committee recommendation ............... 50,000,000 45,000,000,000 1 78,111,000 8,600,000 

1 Administrative expenses for GSR are funded within the Office of Housing. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 

mortgage and loan insurance activity of HUD mortgage/loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance 

[CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the special 

risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting control 

purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based on 

shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of the 

mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative management 

housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized programs, make up the other. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program’’ account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of 
172 

$50,000,000 and $77,400,000 for administrative contract expenses 

of which up to $25,550,000 may be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

The Committee provides $5,000,000 for HUD to make HUDowned or HUD-held housing available through a right of first refusal to units of local government. This language requires this 

housing to be maintained for low-income residents’ use pursuant to 

requirements established by HUD. 

For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends 

$45,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans and a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000. The Committee provides 

$78,111,000 for administrative contract expenses of which up to 

$15,692,000 may be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

The Committee does not provide for transfers of funds from FHA 

to the HUD ‘‘Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses account’’. The Committee has eliminated all salaries and expenses transfers and replaced this funding mechanism with direct 

appropriations to specific salaries and expenses accounts within 

each HUD mission area. This new format will provide for a more 

transparent process and a more effective way to allocate staffing to 

match programmatic needs. 

In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct loan 

programs in 2008 for multifamily bridge loans and single family 

purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain properties 

owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall be provided 

for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily projects by 

purchasers who have obtained commitments for permanent financing from another lender. Purchase money mortgages will enable 

governmental and nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties 

for resale to owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization. 

On March 15, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on the solvency of the FHA as well as the administration’s reform proposal 

for FHA single-family housing. The hearing took place at the same 

time as many subprime lenders were exhibiting considerable financial stress, with the third largest such lender in the Nation declaring bankruptcy. 

The crises in the subprime lending market has its roots in certain lenders engaging in aggressive, and sometimes fraudulent, 

marketing techniques while lowering credit standards—sometimes 

requiring little or no proof of income or creditworthiness on the 

part of borrowers. The Committee is concerned of the impact that 

the vast expansion of these mortgage products will now have on 

low and moderate-income working Americans for years to come. 

Since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a critical role in 

meeting the demands of borrowers that the private market would 

not serve—creating housing products that have insured over 34 

million homes. In the wake of this new crisis, the Committee believes that the FHA must reestablish itself as America’s mortgage 

lender. The agency should do this, not by imitating the marketing 

and underwriting practices of some subprime lenders, but by working to ensure that families are able to purchase and stay in their 

homes with affordable loans that they fully understand. 

Unfortunately, this new challenge comes at a time when the 

FHA finances are in a particularly precarious state. FHA’s market 
173 

share has diminished significantly and the solvency of its insurance 

funds have worsened as a result. FHA is no longer an innovator 

and major player in the housing market. While a number of FHA’s 

challenges can be attributed to factors outside its control, some of 

its wounds have been self-inflicted as identified in recent reports 

and testimony by the GAO and HUD OIG. If FHA did a better job 

of managing risk, its financial condition might improve. 

The signs of a troubled FHA have been identified in a number 

of ways since 2002—FHA has experienced a sharp decline in single-family loan volume with total guarantees dropping 60 percent 

from $147,000,000,000 in 2003 to only $58,000,000,000 in 2005. 

This is primarily due to (1) the perception among lenders that 

FHA’s services are inefficient and overly cumbersome, (2) its flat 

pricing structure, and (3) its limited range of loan products compared to conventional mortgage companies. In addition, default 

rates and the amounts of insurance claims have increased even as 

participation in the program has declined. Some of these problems 

are attributed to ‘‘adverse selection’’ where FHA has taken on more 

risky borrowers, such as seller-financed down-payment loans. The 

FHA Commissioner’s Report from September 2006 found that, 

while endorsements dropped by 17 percent between fiscal year 

2005 and fiscal year 2006, the default rate (90 days in arrears) increased from 6.36 percent to 6.63 percent. Further, loss mitigation 

activity (forbearance agreements, loan modifications, and partial 

claims) had increased by 44 percent between 2005 and 2006. 

In 2007, as in 2006, the administration and Congress have proposed a number of reforms to FHA to address the health and solvency of its insurance funds. While some aspects remain controversial, there seems to be widespread support and recognition that 

some FHA reforms are necessary. Such reforms will certainly be 

necessary if FHA is going to be able to once again position itself 

to grow its market share and meet its mission of allowing low-income families the opportunity to share in the American Dream. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $8,210,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 9,530,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,530,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government National Mortgage Association 

[GNMA] supports the Mortgage Backed Securities [MBS] program, 

which is the guarantee of timely payment of principal and interest 

to investors on the mortgage backed securities pools of FHA/VA/ 

RD/PIH guaranteed loans. The mission of GNMA is to expand affordable housing in America by linking domestic and global capital 

markets to the Nation’s housing markets. 
174 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,530,000 for 

the Office of Government National Mortgage Association. This level 

is the same as the budget request and $1,320,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2007 level. 

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ $200,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,593,000 

Budget estimate, 2008: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 100,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 11,000,000 

Committee recommendation: 

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 9,530,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA is a 

wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed generally by title III 

of the National Housing Act, as amended. GNMA is authorized by 

section 306(g) of the act to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a 

trust, or pool, composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the Rural Housing 

Service, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA’s guarantee 

of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit 

of the United States. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments 

on mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This level is 

$100,000,000,000 more than the budget request and same as the 

fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee has included $9,530,000 for 

administrative expenses. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT

AND RESEARCH

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,520,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,570,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,570,000 

1 As provided within the unified Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses account. 
175 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary establishes the vision and mission for 

the policy development and research components to carry out routine work activities and assignments, and monitors the established 

goals of the organization in support of HUD’s mission and policy 

agenda. Coordinates the development of HUD’s Strategic Plan, substantially participates in the Annual Performance Plan and Performance and Accountability Report processes and co-chairs the 

HUD Energy Action Task Force with the Assistant Secretary for 

Community Planning and Development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,570,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and 

Research. This level is the same as the budget request and $50,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $19,360,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 19,310,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,310,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Policy Development and Research establishes the 

Department’s annual research agenda to support the research and 

evaluation of housing and other departmental initiatives to improve HUD effectiveness and operational efficiencies. Research proposals are determined through consultations with senior staff from 

each HUD program office, the Office of Management and Budget, 

Congress as well as discussion with key HUD stakeholders (National Housing Conference, National Association of Home Builders, 

Department of Transportation, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Emergency Management Agency, etc.) Addresses all inquiries regarding key housing 

economic information such as the American Housing Survey, Fair 

Market Rents, Median Family Income Limits, annual housing goals 

and oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises [GSEs], 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and mortgage market analyses. 

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Statistics.—The Committee is 

concerned that of the population statistics that the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development [HUD] uses to determine allocations for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program do not accurately reflect the populations of rapidly growing States. Statistics 

used by HUD are typically 1 year behind the population estimates 

of the State demographer, which results in the loss of additional 

tax credits for affordable housing projects. The Committee urges 

the HUD to work with State demographer offices to determine a 

more accurate and up-to-date population count. 
176 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,310,000 for 

the Office of Policy Development and Research. This level is the 

same as the budget request and $50,000 less than the fiscal year 

2007 level. 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $50,087,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 65,040,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,040,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, evaluation, 

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs. 

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and 

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local 

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs 

seek ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of 

HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. 

Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation 

and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys. Funding 

is also provided for university programs to further community development related activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $59,040,000 for research, technology 

and community development activities in fiscal year 2008. This 

level is $6,000,000 less than the budget request and $8,953,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 level. Of this funding, $5,000,000 

is for the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing 

[PATH] program. The Committee recommends $20,600,000 to 

carry-out university programs to further community development 

related activities as authorized under section 107 of the Housing 

and Community Development Act of 1974. 

The Committee recommends that activities for the Partnership 

for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative [PATH] shall be 

administered by the Office of Policy Development and Research. 

In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office’s broad 

authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, the Office 

of Policy Development and Research is denied demonstration authority except where approval is provided by Congress in response 

to a reprogramming request. 
177 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 1,490,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,490,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Assistant Secretary is responsible for fair housing and civil 

rights policy, enforcement of the fair housing and equal opportunity 

laws within HUD’s jurisdiction, and the management of the Office 

of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity. This level is the same as the budget request and 

$240,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $63,330,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 69,390,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 69,390,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is responsible 

for developing policies, guidance and for providing technical support for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and the civil rights 

statues, including title VI of the Civil Rights Act, section 504 of the 

1973 Rehabilitation Acts, the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 

section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1974, and the Age discrimination Act of 1975, as well as Executive 

orders. FHEO serves as the central point for the formulation, clearance and dissemination of FHEP policies, intra-departmental clearances, and public information. 

FHEO receives, investigates, conciliate and recommends the 

issuance of charges of discrimination and determinations of noncompliance for complaints filed under title VIII and other civil 

rights authorities and conduct civil rights compliance review and 

compliance reviews under section 3. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $69,390,000 for 

the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This level is the 

same as the budget request and $6,060,000 more than the fiscal 

year 2007 level. 
178 

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $45,540,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 45,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for 

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair 

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP]. 

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The 

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective 

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for 

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies. 

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section 

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as 

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $52,000,000 of which 

$27,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] and 

$25,000,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The 

total is $7,000,000 more than the budget request and $6,460,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies under 

FHAP should have the primary responsibility for identifying and 

addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. It is critical that 

consistent fair housing policies be identified and implemented to insure continuity and fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law. 

The practice of housing discrimination and predatory lending 

continues to be a serious concern for the Committee. Fair housing 

organizations provide vital services in protecting tenants by conducting testing and research activities to uncover fair lending violations. The Committee recommends a $5,000,000 increase over the 

fiscal year 2007 level to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

[FHIP] to better address this problem. This funding boost will further enhance funding to fair housing organizations and other nonprofit groups that fight discrimination and encourage integration 

through education, enforcement and capacity building activities. In 

2006, some 27,000 housing discrimination complaints were filed. 

Yet HUD has acknowledged there is much more to be done since 

only 1 percent of housing discrimination cases are reported each 

year. The Committee expects HUD to continue to direct enforcement money and education money to fair housing organizations 
179 

from HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in order 

to adequately address housing discrimination, from education and 

outreach to community members, to investigative work, and intervention. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

OFFICE OF HEALTHY HOMES AND LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. 1 $5,780,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 6,140,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,140,000 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control has primary responsibility for the lead-based paint and healthy homes activities of the Department and is directly responsible for the administration of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction program 

authorized by title X of the Housing and Community Development 

Act of 1992; the Office also addresses multiple housing-related hazards affecting the health of residents, particularly children. The Office develops lead-based paint regulations, guidelines, and policies 

applicable to HUD programs, and enforces the Lead Disclosure 

Rule issued under title X. For both lead-based paint and healthy 

homes issues, the Office designs and administers programs for 

grants, training, research, education and information dissemination, and serves as the Department’s central information source for 

the Secretary, the Congress, HUD staff, HUD grantees, State and 

local governments and the public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,140,000 for 

the Office of the Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. This 

level is the same as the budget request and $360,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 level. 

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $150,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 116,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 151,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction 

Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private low-income 

housing. This has become a significant health hazard, especially for 

children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 434,000 children have elevated blood levels, down 

from 1.7 million in the late 1980’s. Despite this improvement, lead 

poisoning remains a serious childhood environmental condition, 
180 

with some 2.2 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-income children living in older housing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $151,000,000 for lead-based paint 

hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2008. This 

amount is $35,000,000 more than the budget request and $520,000 

more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Of this amount, HUD 

may use up to $8,800,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative under 

which HUD conducts a number of activities designed to identify 

and address housing-related illnesses. The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for the lead hazard reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal 

year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning. 

As previously discussed, there remains significant lead risks in 

privately owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-income 

units. For that reason, approximately 1 million children under the 

age of 6 in the United States suffer from lead poisoning. While lead 

poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. In the United States, children from 

poor families are eight times more likely to be poisoned than those 

from higher income families. Nevertheless, the risks associated 

with lead-based paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next 

decade. 

The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on 

its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info. 

Big Buy Program.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue funding the Big Buy Program at the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development [HUD]. Further, the Committee directs 

that these funds be managed by the Office of Healthy Homes and 

Lead Hazard Control. In 2001, HUD launched the Big Buy program to use the Department’s purchasing power to contract for 

lead inspections of pre-1978 Federally subsidized properties that 

HUD determined posed the greatest likelihood of containing potentially hazardous levels of lead-based paint. The Big Buy program 

was initially funded with $56,000,000 and over 3,900 eligible properties registered to take part. The Committee is concerned that at 

this time fewer than half of these properties have been scheduled 

for testing services, and less than that have actually been tested 

and had the inspection report delivered. The Committee understands that HUD does not have the necessary funds to complete 

testing these properties. HUD informed the Committee that there 

are still approximately 1,500 properties that still need to be inspected. The Committee provides these funds to continue the Big 

Buy Program inspections and recognizes that these funds are not 

sufficient to complete the testing that is necessary. The Committee 

urges HUD to provide sufficient funding in future year budget requests. 
181 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Direct Appropriation FHA funds GNMA 

funds 

Development 

Loan 

Guarantee 

funds 

Natuve 

American 

Block 

Grant 

funds 

Indian 

Housing 

Loan 

Guarantee 

funds 

Native 

Hawaiian 

Loan 

funds 

Total 

Appropriations, 2007 .......... 580,821 556,776 10,593 743 149 248 35 1,149,365 

Budget estimate, 2008 ...... 654,092 556,776 10,700 .............. 149 248 35 1,222,000 

Committee recommendation 1,222,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,222,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ account finances all salaries and related expenses associated with administering the programs of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. These include the 

following activities: 

Housing and Mortgage Credit Programs.—This activity includes 

staff salaries and related expenses associated with administering 

housing programs, the implementation of consumer protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales, mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement procedures. 

Community Planning and Development Programs.—Funds in this 

activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to administer 

community planning and development programs. 

Equal Opportunity and Research Programs.—This activity includes salaries and related expenses associated with implementing 

equal opportunity programs in housing and employment as required by law and Executive orders and the administration of research programs and demonstrations. 

Departmental Management, Legal, and Audit Services.—This activity includes a variety of general functions required for the Department’s overall administration and management. These include 

the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel, Office of 

Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative support in such 

areas as accounting, personnel management, contracting and procurement, and office services. 

Field Direction and Administration.—This activity includes salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the direction, supervision, and performance of the Department’s field offices, as well as 

administrative support in areas such as accounting, personnel 

management, contracting and procurement, and office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends several separate appropriations which together total $1,222,000,000 for salaries and expenses. This 

level is the same as the budget request and $72,636,524 more than 

the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee has eliminated all salaries and expenses transfers and replaced this funding mechanism 

with direct appropriations to specific salaries and expenses ac-
182 

counts within each HUD mission area. This new format will provide for a more transparent process and a more effective way to allocate staffing to match programmatic needs. 

The Committee remains concerned about HUD’s ability to administer its programs and place staff where most needed. Therefore, 

the Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring within the Department, including justifications for any significant increase in 

FTEs for any particular office or activity. 

In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing more 

than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive service employees. The Committee understands that the Department is 

staffed largely by personnel who are close to retirement and at the 

top of the civil service pay schedule. The Committee encourages 

HUD to implement hiring practices that result in the hiring of 

young professionals who can gain experience and advancement. 

The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly reports 

on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. These 

reports shall include a list of all HUD-related trips, the names of 

all staff on each trip, and all costs, including the individual costs 

of lodging, food, transportation and any other costs. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds by 

transfer Total 

Appropriations, 2007 ................................................................................. $81,852,503 $23,760,000 105,612,503 

Budget estimate, 2008 .............................................................................. 88,240,000 23,760,000 112,000,000 

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 112,000,000 ........................ 112,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses 

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General 

[OIG]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $112,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is the same as the budget request and $6,387,497 above the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee does not provide for transfers of FHA funds to OIG. The 

Committee has eliminated all salaries and expenses transfers and 

replaced this funding mechanism with direct appropriations to specific salaries and expenses accounts within each HUD mission area. 

This new format will provide for a more transparent process and 

a more effective way to allocate staffing to match programmatic 

needs. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $195,356,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 220,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,000,000 
183 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Working Capital Fund, authorized by the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information 

technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for the Working Cap- ital Fund for fiscal year 2008. These funds are $45,000,000 less 

than the budget request and $20,356,000 less than the fiscal year 

2007 level. This fund is needed to enhance efficient use of appropriated funds and improve budget projections and needs for submission of the Committees on Appropriations. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $60,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 66,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 66,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing Government sponsored enterprises [GSE’s], the Federal National Mortgage 

Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The 

Office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprise Safety 

and Soundness Act of 1992, which also instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE’s, and gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those standards. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for the Office of Federal 

Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the budget request and $6,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends administrative provisions. A brief 

description follows. 

SEC. 201. This section promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds. 

SEC. 202. This section clarifies a limitation on use of funds under 

the Fair Housing Act. 

SEC. 203. This section clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding 

for fiscal year 2006. 

SEC. 204. This section requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis unless otherwise provided. 

SEC. 205. This section allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs 

and other Federal entities for various administrative expenses. 

SEC. 206. This section limits HUD spending to amounts set out 

in the budget justification. 
184 

SEC. 207. This section clarifies expenditure authority for entities 

subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

SEC. 208. This section requires HUD to submit certain additional 

information as part of its annual budget justifications. 

SEC. 209. This section requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs. 

SEC. 210. This section makes a number of corrections to the 

award of HOPWA funding. 

SEC. 211. This section requires HUD to submit annual reports on 

the number and cost of HUD-assisted units. The Committee is concerned that HUD’s property disposition program is not adequately 

committed to preserving the affordability of formerly subsidized 

units, and directs HUD to establish and submit to the Committee 

workable criteria for ensuring the maintenance of project-based 

section 8 wherever possible. The Committee also expects HUD to 

improve its consultation and coordination with units of local government and residents. HUD is reminded that it should use its discretionary preservation authority for the purpose of preserving affordability. 

SEC. 212. This section requires HUD to submit its fiscal year 

2008 budget justifications according to congressional requirements. 

SEC. 213. This section requires vouchers for non-elderly disabled 

families to be renewed, to the extent practicable, to non-elderly disabled families. 

SEC. 214. This section exempts Los Angeles County, Alaska, 

Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2006. Instead, the public housing agencies in these States are required to establish advisory boards that include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients. 

SEC. 215. This section allows HUD to authorize the transfer of 

existing project-based subsidies and liabilities from obsolete housing to housing that better meets the needs of the assisted tenants. 

SEC. 216. This section provides allocation requirements for Native Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block 

Grant program. 

SEC. 217. This section requires vouchers for family unification to 

be renewed, to the extent practicable, for the family unification. 

SEC. 218. This section exempts GNMA from certain requirements 

of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

SEC. 219. This section reforms certain section 8 rent calculations 

as to athletic scholarships. 

SEC. 220. This section requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on HUD-held or owned multifamily housing. 

SEC. 221. This section increases FHA multifamily housing loan 

limits. 

SEC. 222. This section extends the HOPE VI program until September 30, 2008. 

SEC. 223. This section allows public housing authorities with less 

than 500 units the option to be exempt from management requirements in the operating fund rule. 

SEC. 224. This section prevents HUD from imposing certain restrictions on the use of capital funds by public housing authorities. 
185 

SEC. 225. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to the 

Appropriations Committees on the status of all section 8 projectbased housing units, including all units preserved or lost as section 

8 project-based housing. 

SEC. 226. This section requires HUD to report quarterly to the 

appropriations committees on the use of all sole source contracting 

by HUD. 

SEC. 227. This section allows existing energy performance contracts between public housing authorities and third parties to be 

extended. 

SEC. 228. This section includes Alaska Pubic Housing Agency as 

a Moving-to-Work Agency. 

SEC. 229. This section provides technical corrections to economic 

development initiatives included in previous appropriations acts. 

SEC. 230. This section expands the availability of Home Equity 

Conversion Mortgage without limit during 2008. 

SEC. 231. This section clarifies that the Housing Authority of 

Baltimore City has and will continue to carry the Moving-to-Work 

program designation. 
(186) 

TITLE III 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE

BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $5,915,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,150,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,150,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These 

guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered by these laws are 

readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The 

Board is also responsible for developing standards under section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information technology used by Federal agencies. The Access Board also 

enforces the Architectural Barriers Act. In addition, the Board provides training and technical assistance on the guidelines and 

standards it develops to Government agencies, public and private 

organizations, individuals and businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers. 

In 2002, the Access Board was given additional responsibilities 

under the Help America Vote Act. The Board serves on the Board 

of Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps Election Assistance Commission develop voluntary 

guidelines and guidance for voting systems, including accessibility 

for people with disabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,150,000 for the operations of the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 

funding level requested by the administration and $235,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2007 level. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $20,428,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 22,322,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,322,000 
187 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] is an independent regulatory agency which administers the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–237) as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 

1998 (Public Law 105–258); section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1920 (41 Stat. 998); the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–418); and Public Law 89–777. 

FMC regulates the international waterborne commerce of the 

United States. In addition, the FMC has responsibility for licensing 

and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that 

vessel owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay 

judgments for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of 

a cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. Major program areas for 2006 

are: carrying out investigations of foreign trade practices under the 

Foreign Shipping Practices Act; maintaining equitable trading conditions in U.S. ocean commerce; ensuring compliance with applicable shipping statutes; pursuing an active enforcement program designed to identify and prosecute violators of the shipping statutes; 

and reviewing ocean carrier operational and pricing agreements to 

guard against excessively anticompetitive effects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes $22,322,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 2008. 

This amount is the same as the budget request and $1,894,000 

above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $79,338,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 83,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 84,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation [DOT], the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent Federal 

agency. The board is charged by Congress with investigating every 

civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant 

accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, 

marine and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed 

at preventing future accidents. Although it has always operated 

independently, NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public 

Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations starting in 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the Government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 
188 

involving U.S-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 

or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are 

assessed by FAA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $84,500,000 for the National Transportation Safety Board, which is $1,500,000 more than the budget 

request and $5,162,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level. The Committee has included $1,500,000 more than the budget request to allow the agency to hire an additional 11 investigative 

staff. Since fiscal year 2005, staffing at NTSB has been reduced 

from 418 positions to 396. As a result, the NTSB is lacking engineers, investigators, technicians and specialists in the areas of 

highways, pipelines, rail, research and engineering and aviation. 

The Committee instructs the agency to use additional funding provided to hire personnel in the most critical areas in order to enable 

the agency to continue to perform its investigative duties with the 

critical expertise needed. 

NTSB Academy.—In 2001, the National Transportation Safety 

Board entered into an illegal multi-year lease for its new training 

facility without sufficient funding to cover the cost of the lease. 

Consequently, the NTSB reported an Anti-deficiency Act violation 

to the President and Congress on December 19, 2003. 

The annual operating costs of the training center continue to be 

a drain on the NTSB’s resources and divert needed funds away 

from the Board’s central missions of accident investigations and the 

issuance of safety recommendations. In the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109– 

443), Congress sought to address this problem by mandating that 

NTSB prepare a utilization plan on how the Board would make the 

academy’s operations self-sufficient. The act further charges the 

Board to implement the plan with the goal of making the academy’s operations self-sufficient within 2 years of the date of enactment of the act—or no later than December 21, 2008. 

The Committee has included bill language that gives the NTSB 

the authority to continue to make lease payments on the NTSB 

academy facility. However, this authority is limited to fiscal year 

2008 only. The NTSB sent its final utilization plan to Congress in 

June, and as part of that plan, it expects to award a contract in 

the fall to an entity that will serve as a partner in running the 

academy. The Committee will be closely monitoring the implementation of this plan, as well as the Board’s financial data that will 

indicate if the NTSB is successfully reducing the financial burden 

of the academy. 

Most Wanted Safety Recommendations.—As a result of its investigative work and the studies it conducts, the Board makes recommendations to industry, Federal agencies and the States for actions that they can take to improve transportation safety. Every 

year, the Board prioritizes some of these recommendations on its 

‘‘Most Wanted’’ list. This list encompasses all the recommendations 

that the agency believes have the most potential to improve safety, 
189 

reduce accidents and injuries and save lives. This list is an important tool that the Committee uses to understand critical transportation safety concerns, as well as to evaluate the agencies’ responsiveness to critical safety issues. The Committee therefore directs 

the Board to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the ‘‘Most Wanted’’ recommendation list when it is updated annually. The Board is further directed to notify the Committees when the status of a recommendation has changed. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $116,820,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 119,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 119,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ 

NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish efficient 

and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of 

the public and private sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are frequently known as Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual 

housing associations. 

Collectively, these organizations are known as the 

NeighborWorks® network. Nationally, 235 NeighborWorks® organizations serve nearly 3,000 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $119,800,000 for the Neighborhood 

Reinvestment Corporation [NRC] for fiscal year 2008. This amount 

is the same as the budget request and $2,980,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 level. The Committee continues to support the set-aside 

of $5,000,000 for the multifamily rental housing initiative, which 

has been successful in developing innovative approaches to producing mixed-income affordable housing throughout the Nation. 

The Committee directs NRC to provide a status report on this initiative in its fiscal year 2009 budget justifications. 

Homeownership Counseling.—The Committee applauds the important work that NRC is doing in addressing the many challenges 

facing homeowners today, especially as the number of foreclosures 

continues to rise. In an effort to create educated borrowers, NRC 

educated and counseled over 84,000 people and assisted more than 

16,500 individuals and families of modest means to achieve homeownership in fiscal year 2006. The success of these efforts in providing housing education and homeownership counseling is demonstrated in the improved loan performance of families assisted by 

NRC organizations. Using its experience in this area, NRC, with a 

consortium of nonprofit and industry partners developed national 
190 

standards for homeownership educators and counselors. These 

standards should help improve the quality and consistency of counseling that homeowners receive. 

Foreclosure Prevention Efforts.—The NeighborWorks® Center for 

Foreclosure Solutions is a partnership between nonprofit, financial, 

mortgage, and insurance sectors that works to preserve homeownership and prevent foreclosures across the country. The Center 

established a national toll-free hotline, which is operated by the 

Homeownership Preservation Foundation of Chicago. Through this 

hotline, which served 25,000 families in 2006, at-risk homeowners 

are offered over-the-phone counseling or referrals to organizations 

that can provide in-person counseling for those who need additional 

assistance. The Committee supports the efforts of NRC to help 

homeowners avoid foreclosure and sustain the gains that have been 

made in increasing homeownership and reviving neighborhoods 

around the country. 

Rural Areas.—The Committee also continues to support Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation’s efforts in building capacity in 

rural areas. The Committee urges the Corporation to continue its 

efforts in addressing the needs of rural communities. 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,787,971 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,320,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,300,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an 

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of 

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons 

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council 

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation; 

and other entities as deemed appropriate. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,300,000 for 

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]. 

This amount is $512,029 more than the fiscal year 2007 level and 

$20,000 less than the budget request. These funds are for carrying 

out the functions authorized under section 203 of the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act. Bill language is included that extends the reauthorization for the ICH until October 1, 2008. 

The Committee continues to support the mission of ICH and its 

efforts to end homelessness. The agency has a critical role to play 

in coordinating the efforts of Federal agencies to address the needs 
191 

of the Nation’s homeless in a comprehensive nature. In 2002, the 

administration set a goal to end chronic homelessness in 10 years. 

If the administration is to be successful in achieving this goal by 

2012, it will take the efforts and resources of Federal, State, and 

local governments. ICH has been successful in engaging States and 

cities across the Nation in responding to the needs of the homeless, 

which is evident in the development of over 300 10-year plans to 

end homelessness across the country. However, it is unclear whether all Federal agencies are fully participating in this effort. Accordingly, the Committee directs the ICH to submit a report to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the progress 

in meeting the goal to end chronic homelessness in 10 years. This 

report should include specifics on how efforts by both local and 

Federal agencies will enable the achievement of this goal. This report should be submitted by no later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this act. 

Staffing.—The Committee believes that regional coordinators are 

important to assisting communities in developing and carrying out 

10-year plans to end homelessness. Therefore, the Committee has 

included funding to support two additional regional coordinator positions, as requested. The Committee also believes that additional 

efforts must be taken to ensure improved efforts on the Federal 

level. As such, it is the intent of the Committee that the special advisor position requested be used to improve Federal coordination efforts and policy development related to homelessness in the United 

States. 

Travel.—The Committee is concerned by the requested increase 

in the travel budget for fiscal year 2008. The Committee understands that this increase is associated with the additional regional 

coordinator positions. However, while the Committee recognizes 

that the travel budget for the Executive Director has been decreased in the fiscal year 2008 request, the Committee still believes 

that it is too high. Therefore the travel budget for ICH is limited 

to $143,642, which is $20,000 less than the requested level. The reduction to the travel budget should be taken out of the allocation 

for the Executive Director, since the Committee believes that increased time and efforts should be spent coordinating Federal agencies. 
(192) 

TITLE IV 

GENERAL PROVISIONS THIS ACT 

Section 401 requires pay raises to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this act or previous appropriations acts. 

Section 402 prohibits pay and other expenses for non-Federal 

parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 403 prohibits obligations beyond the current fiscal year 

and prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404 limits expenditures for consulting service through 

procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of 

public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 405 authorizes the reprogramming of funds and specifies 

the reprogramming procedures for agencies funded by this act. 

Section 406 ensures that 50 percent of unobligated balances may 

remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 407 requires departments and agencies under this act to 

report information regarding all sole source contracts. 

Section 408 prohibits the use of funds for employee training unless such training bears directly upon the performance of official 

duties. 

Section 409 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

for eminent domain unless such taking is employed for public use. 

Section 410 prohibits funds in this act to be transferred without 

express authority. 

Section 411 protects employment rights of Federal employees 

who return to their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed 

Forces. 

Section 412 prohibits the use of funds for activities not in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 413 prohibits funding for any person or entity convicted 

of violating the Buy American Act. 
(193) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee is filing an original bill, which is not covered 

under this rule, but reports this information in the spirit of full disclosure. 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2008: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Operations 

Facilities and Equipment 

Research, Engineering and Development 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and Operations 

Railroad Research and Development 

Grants to the National Passenger Railroad Corp 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Administrative Expenses 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration: 

Research and Development 

Surface Transportation Board 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and Administrative Expenses 

Section 441 Contracts 

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, and Family Unification 

Contract Administrators 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

Native American Housing Block Grants: 

Native American Housing Block Grants 

Federal Guarantees 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids 

Rural Housing and Economics Development 
194 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block Grants 

Economic Development Initiatives 

Neighborhood Initiatives 

HOME Program: 

HOME Investment Partnership 

Downpayment Assistance Initiative 

HOPE VI 

Brownfields Redevelopment 

Self Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity: 

Capacity Building 

Housing Assistance Council 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program 

National Housing Development Corporation 

Homeless Assistance Grants 

Housing for the Elderly 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Limitation on Direct Loans 

Credit Subsidy 

Administrative Expenses 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans 

Administrative Expenses 

Policy Development and Research 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program 

Salaries and Expenses 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 12, 2007, the 

Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 1789) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing 

and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the bill 

subject to amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a 

recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 
195 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Alexander 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 8—LOW-INCOME HOUSING 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED 

HOUSING 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1437v. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, 

and tenant-based assistance grants for projects 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) Funding 
196 

(1) Authorization of appropriations 

There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under 

this section $574,000,000 for fiscal year ø2003¿ 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

(o) Sunset 

No assistance may be provided under this section after øSeptember 30, 2007¿ September 30, 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through August 

31, ø2006,¿ 2008, and may extend through December 31, 

ø2006,¿ 2008, the termination date of any insurance policy 

that the Department of Transportation issued to an air carrier 

under subsection (a) and that is in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection on no less favorable terms to the air 

carrier than existed on June 19, 2002; except that the Secretary shall amend the insurance policy, subject to such terms 

and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, to add coverage 

for losses or injuries to aircraft hulls, passengers, and crew at 

the limits carried by air carriers for such losses and injuries 

as of such date of enactment and at an additional premium 

comparable to the premium charged for third-party casualty 

coverage under such policy. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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, 
197 

2001, and ending on December 31, ø2006,¿ 2008, the Secretary 

may certify that the air carrier was a victim of an act of terrorism 

and in the Secretary’s judgment, based on the Secretary’s analysis 

and conclusions regarding the facts and circumstances of each case, 

shall not be responsible for losses suffered by third parties (as referred to in section 205.5(b)(1) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) that exceed $100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by 

such parties arising out of such act. If the Secretary so certifies, 

the air carrier shall not be liable for an amount that exceeds 

$100,000,000, in the aggregate, for all claims by such parties arising out of such act, and the Government shall be responsible for 

any liability above such amount. No punitive damages may be 

awarded against an air carrier (or the Government taking responsibility for an air carrier under this subsection) under a cause of action arising out of such act. The Secretary may extend the provisions of this subsection to an aircraft manufacturer (as defined in 

section 44301) of the aircraft of the air carrier involved. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44310. Ending effective date 

The authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide insurance and reinsurance under this chapter is not effective after 

øMarch 30, 2008¿ December 31, 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 209. TERMINATION. 

The Council shall cease to exist, and the requirements of this 

title shall terminate, on October 1, ø2007¿ 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘RENTAL HOUSING INSURANCE

‘‘SEC. 207. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(c) To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage 

on any property or project shall involve a principal obligation in an 

amount— 

ø‘‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 

projects as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior and land improvements as defined by the Secretary), 

$38,025 per family unit without bedroom, $42,120 per family 
198 

unit with one bedroom, $50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 

$70,200 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, or not to 

exceed $17,460 per space; except that as to projects to consist 

of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, 

increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit to not 

to exceed $43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 

per family unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with 

two bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, 

and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as 

the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs incident 

to the construction of elevator type structures of sound standards of construction and design; and except that the Secretary 

may, by regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount 

limitations contained in this paragraph by not to exceed ø140 

percent¿ 170 percent in any geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 

ø140 percent¿ 170 percent, or ø170 percent in high cost areas¿ 

215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary determines 

it necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may 

any such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the 

Government National Mortgage Association in implementing 

its special assistance functions under section 305 of this Act 

(as such section existed immediately before November 30, 

1983) is involved. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘COOPERATIVE HOUSING INSURANCE

‘‘ ‘SEC. 213. (a) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(b) * * * 

ø‘‘ ‘(1) 

‘‘ ‘(2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 

project as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $41,207 

per family unit without a bedroom, $47,511 per family unit 

with one bedroom, $57,300 per family unit with two bedrooms, 

$73,343 per family unit with three bedrooms, and $81,708 per 

family unit with four or more bedrooms, and not to exceed 98 

per centum of the amount which the Secretary estimates will 

be the replacement cost of the property or project when the 

proposed physical improvements are completed: Provided, That 

as to projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit to not to exceed $43,875 per family unit 

without a bedroom, $49,710 per family unit with one bedroom, 

$60,446 per family unit with two bedrooms, $78,197 per family 

unit with three bedrooms, and $85,836 per family unit with 

four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for 

the higher cost incident to the construction of elevator-type 

structures of sound standards of construction and design; (B)(i) 

the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 

amount limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations 
199 

may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of 

this Act) by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent in any 

geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so 

require and by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent, or 

ø170 percent in high cost areas¿ 215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-byproject basis, but in no case may any such increase exceed 90 

percent where the Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government National Mortgage Association in implementing its special assistance functions under section 305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved; and (ii) in the 

case of a mortgagor of the character described in paragraph (3) 

of subsection (a) the mortgage shall involve a principal obligation in an amount not to exceed 90 per centum of the amount 

which the Secretary estimates will be the replacement cost of 

the property or project when the proposed physical improvements are completed; and (iii) upon the sale of a property or 

project by a mortgagor of the character described in paragraph 

(3) of subsection (a) to a nonprofit cooperative ownership housing corporation or trust within two years after the completion 

of such property or project the mortgage given to finance such 

sale shall involve a principal obligation in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount computed in accordance with this 

subparagraph (B)(i).. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘REHABILITATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION HOUSING

INSURANCE

‘‘ ‘SEC. 220. (a) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(d) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(3) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(A)(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(B) 

‘‘ ‘(ii) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(iii)(I) not to exceed, for such part of the property or project as may be attributable to dwelling use 

(excluding exterior land improvements as defined by 

the Secretary), $38,025 per family unit without a bedroom, $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, 

$50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 

per family unit with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per 

family unit with four or more bedrooms, except that as 

to projects to consist of elevator-type structures the 

Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar 

amount limitations per family unit not to exceed 

$43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 

per family unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family 

unit with two bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with 
200 

three bedrooms, and $85,328 per family unit with four 

or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate 

for the higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-type structures of sound standards of construction and design; and (II) with respect to rehabilitation 

projects involving not more than five family units, the 

Secretary may by regulation increase by 25 per centum any of the dollar amount limitations in subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act) 

which are applicable to units with two, three, or four 

or more bedrooms; (III) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase the dollar amount limitations contained 

in subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may 

have been adjusted in accordance with section ø206A 

of this Act)) by not to exceed 110 percent in any geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 140 percent where 

the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-byproject basis¿ 206A of this Act) by not to exceed 170 

percent in any geographical area where the Secretary 

finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 

170 percent, or 215 percent in high cost areas, where 

the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-byproject basis, but in no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that 

a mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government National Mortgage Association in implementing its special assistance functions under section 

305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately 

before November 30, 1983) is involved); (IV) That 

nothing contained in this subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) shall 

preclude the insurance of mortgages covering existing 

multifamily dwellings to be rehabilitated or reconstructed for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) of 

this section; (V) the Secretary may further increase 

any of the dollar limitations which would otherwise 

apply to such projects by not to exceed 20 per centum 

if such increase is necessary to account for the increased cost of the project due to the installation 

therein of a solar energy system (as defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of section 2(a) of 

this Act) or residential energy conservation measures 

(as defined in section 210(11)(A) through (G) and (I) of 

Public Law 95–619) in cases where the Secretary determines that such measures are in addition to those 

required under the minimum property standards and 

will be cost-effective over the life of the measure; and 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘HOUSING FOR MODERATE INCOME AND DISPLACED FAMILIES

‘‘ ‘SEC. 221. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
201 

‘‘ ‘(d) * * * 

‘‘ ‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(3) * * * 

ø‘‘ ‘(i) 

‘‘ ‘(ii)(I) not exceed, for such part of the property or 

project as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding 

exterior land improvements as defined by the Secretary), 

$42,048 per family unit without a bedroom, $48,481 per 

family unit with one bedroom, 58,469 per family unit with 

two bedrooms, $74,840 per family unit with three bedrooms, and $83,375 per family unit with four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type 

structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase 

the dollar amount limitations per family unit to not to exceed $44,250 per family unit without a bedroom, $50,724 

per family unit with one bedroom, $61,680 per family unit 

with two bedrooms, $79,793 per family unit with three 

bedrooms, and $87,588 per family unit with four or more 

bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-type structures of sound standards of construction and design; (II) 

the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar amount limitations in subclause (I) (as such limitations 

may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A 

of this Act) by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent in 

any geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost 

levels so require and by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 

percent, or ø170 percent in high cost areas¿ 215 percent in 

high cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may 

any such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 

determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased 

by the Government National Mortgage Association in implementing its special assistance functions under section 

305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before 

November 30, 1983) is involved; and 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(4) * * * 

‘‘ ‘ 

ø‘‘ ‘(i) 

‘‘ ‘(ii)(I) not exceed, or such part of the property or 

project as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding 

exterior land improvements as defined by the Secretary), 

$37,843 per family unit without a bedroom, $42,954 per 

family unit with one bedroom, $51,920 per family unit 

with two bedrooms, $65,169 per family unit with three 

bedrooms, and $73,846 per family unit with four or more 

bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist of elevatortype structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit to not 

to exceed $40,876 per family unit without a bedroom, 

$46,859 per family unit with one bedroom, $56,979 per 
202 

family unit with two bedrooms, $73,710 per family unit 

with three bedrooms, and $80,913 per family unit with 

four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate 

for the higher costs incident to the construction of elevatortype structures of sound standards of construction and design; (II) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of 

the dollar limitations in subclause (I) (as such limitations 

may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A 

of this Act) by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent in 

any geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost 

levels so require and by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 

percent, or ø170 percent in high cost areas¿ 215 percent in 

high cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may 

any such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 

determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased 

by the Government National Mortgage Association in implementing its special assistance functions under section 

305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before 

November 30, 1983) is involved; 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘HOUSING FOR ELDERLY PERSONS

‘‘ ‘SEC. 231. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(c) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a mortgage 

to provide housing for elderly persons shall— 

ø‘‘ ‘(1) 

‘‘ ‘(2)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 

project as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior land improvement as defined by the Secretary), $35,978 

per family unit without a bedroom, $40,220 per family unit 

with one bedroom, $48,029 per family unit with two bedrooms, 

$57,798 per family unit with three bedrooms, and $67,950 per 

family unit with four or more bedrooms; except that as to 

projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary 

may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations 

per family unit to not to exceed $40,876 per family unit without a bedroom, $46,859 per family unit with one bedroom, 

$56,979 per family unit with two bedrooms, $73,710 per family 

unit with three bedrooms, and $80,913 per family unit with 

four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for 

the higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-type 

structures of sound standards of construction and design; (B) 

the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 

limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations may have 

been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act) by 

not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent in any geographical 

area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so require and 

by not to exceed ø140 percent¿ 170 percent, or ø170 percent in 

high cost areas¿ 215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis, 

but in no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent where 
203 

the Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 

purchased by the Government National Mortgage Association 

in implementing its special assistance functions under section 

305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved; (C) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar limitations in subparagraph (A) 

(as such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance 

with section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed 20 per centum 

if such increase is necessary to account for the increased cost 

of the project due to the installation therein of a solar energy 

system (as defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph 

of section 2(a) of this Act) or residential energy conservation 

measures (as defined in section 210(11) (A) through (G) and (I) 

of Public Law 95–619) in cases where the Secretary determines 

that such measures are in addition to those required under the 

minimum property standards and will be cost-effective over the 

life of the measure; 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR CONDOMINIUMS

‘‘ ‘SEC. 234. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(e) * * * 

ø‘‘ ‘(1) 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘ ‘(3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the project as may 

be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $42,048 per family 

unit without a bedroom, $48,481 per family unit with one bedroom, $58,469 per family unit with two bedrooms, $74,840 per 

family unit with three bedrooms, and $83,375 per family unit 

with four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit 

to not to exceed $44,250 per family unit without a bedroom, 

$50,724 per family unit with one bedroom, $61,680 per family 

unit with two bedrooms, $79,793 per family unit with three 

bedrooms, and $87,588 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-type structures of sound 

standards of construction and design; (B) the Secretary may, 

by regulation, increase any of the dollar limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act) by not to exceed ø140 

percent¿ 170 percent in any geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 

ø140 percent¿ 170 percent, or ø170 percent in high cost areas¿ 

215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary determines 

it necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case may 

any such increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the 

Government National Mortgage Association in implementing 
204 

its special assistance functions under section 305 of this Act 

(as such section existed immediately before November 30, 

1983) is involved; and 

* * * * * * * 

UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937 

* * * * * * * 

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

‘‘(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(e) OPERATING FUND.— 

‘‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(2) FORMULA.— 

‘‘(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF SAVINGS.— 

‘‘(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(iii) TERM OF CONTRACT.—The total term of a contract described in clause (i) shall not exceed 20 years 

to allow longer payback periods for retrofits, including 

windows, heating system replacements, wall insulation, site-based generation, advanced energy savings 

technologies, including renewable energy generation, 

and other such retrofits. 

(iv) EXISTING CONTRACTS.—The term of a contract 

described in clause (i) that, as of the date of enactment 

of this clause, is in repayment and has a term of not 

more than 12 years, may be extended to a term of not 

more than 20 years to permit additional energy conservation improvements without requiring the reprocurement of energy performance contractors. 

* * * * * * * 

FOURTH FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 

1986, PUBLIC LAW 99–190 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Such amounts as may be necessary for projects or activities 

provided for in the Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986, at a rate for operations and to 

the extent and in the manner provided for in the following Act; this 

subsection shall be effective as if it had been enacted into law as 

the regular appropriations Act: 

An Act making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, and for other purposes. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * * 
205 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 321. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration 

shall enter into a contract with the Southern California Rapid 

Transit District to conduct a study of the potential methane gas 

risks relating to the proposed alignment of the Metro Rail project 

beyond the Minimum Operable Segment, MOS–1. øNone of the 

funds described in section 320 may be made available for any segment of the downtown Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro 

Rail project unless and until the Southern California Rapid Transit 

District officially notifies and commits to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration that no part of the Metro Rail project will 

tunnel into or through any zone designated as a potential risk zone 

or high potential risk zone in the report of the City of Los Angeles 

dated June 10, 1985, entitled ‘‘Task Force Report on the March 24, 

1985 Methane Gas Explosion and Fire in the Fairfax Area’’.¿ 

Funds for this study, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, shall 

be made available from funds previously allocated for the MOS–1 

project, commencing within 30 days of enactment. 

* * * * * * * 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation Amount of bill Committee allocation Amount of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the budget resolution 

for 2008: Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ........................................................................ 51,063 51.063 114,627 1 114,621 

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 43,606 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 31,620 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 14,643 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 6,499 

2012 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 6,952 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2008 ......................................................................................... NA 27,052 NA 27,870 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
206 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 84,552 96,197 95,197 ∂10,645 ¥1,000 

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

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (84,552 ) (96,197 ) (95,197 ) (∂10,645 ) (¥1,000 ) 

Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 8,527 9,141 9,141 ∂614 ............................Rescission of excess compensation for air carriers .................................................................................................. ¥50,000 ¥22,000 ¥22,000 ∂28,000 ............................Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 14,893 9,115 14,115 ¥778 ∂5,000 Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. (118,014 ) ............................ (128,094 ) (∂10,080 ) (∂128,094 ) Minority business resource center program ............................................................................................................... 893 891 891 ¥2 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367 ) (18,367 ) (18,367 ) ............................ ............................

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 2,970 2,970 2,970 ............................ ............................New headquarters building ........................................................................................................................................ 49,500 ............................ ............................ ¥49,500 ............................
207 

Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 59,400 ............................ 60,000 ∂600 ∂60,000 

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 170,735 96,314 160,314 ¥10,421 ∂64,000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,374,217 ............................ 8,761,783 ∂387,566 ∂8,761,783 

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

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (8,374,217 ) ............................ (8,761,783 ) (∂387,566 ) (∂8,761,783 ) 

Safety and Operations ................................................................................................................................................ ............................ 1,879,453 ............................ ............................ ¥1,879,453 Air Traffic Organization .............................................................................................................................................. ............................ 9,307,896 ............................ ............................ ¥9,307,896 Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .............................................................................................. 2,516,920 ............................ 2,516,920 ............................ ∂2,516,920 Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ............................................................. 130,234 140,000 148,800 ∂18,566 ∂8,800 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (4,399,000 ) (4,300,000 ) (4,399,000 ) ............................ (∂99,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,514,500 ) (2,750,000 ) (3,514,500 ) ............................ (∂764,500 ) Small community air service development program ........................................................................................ (10,000 ) ............................ (10,000 ) ............................ (∂10,000 ) Airport Cooperative Research Program ............................................................................................................. (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................Airport Technology Research ............................................................................................................................. (17,870 ) (18,712 ) (18,712 ) (∂842 ) ............................2007 F&E Pop-up contract authority ................................................................................................................ 596,000 ............................ ............................ ¥596,000 ............................Rescission of contract authority (BY F&E Pop-up) .......................................................................................... ¥596,000 ............................ ............................ ∂596,000 ............................Rescission of contract authority (prior yr Pop-up) ........................................................................................... ¥25,000 ............................ ¥185,500 ¥160,500 ¥185,500 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (3,489,500 ) (2,750,000 ) (3,329,000 ) (¥160,500 ) (∂579,000 ) 

War risk insurance program extension ...................................................................................................................... ¥29,000 ............................ ¥164,000 ¥135,000 ¥164,000 

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 10,967,371 11,327,349 11,078,003 ∂110,632 ¥249,346 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (11,588,371 ) (11,327,349 ) (11,263,503 ) (¥324,868 ) (¥63,846 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥621,000 ) ............................ (¥185,500 ) (∂435,500 ) (¥185,500 ) Limitations on obligations) .................................................................................................................. (3,514,500 ) (2,750,000 ) (3,514,500 ) ............................ (∂764,500 ) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (14,481,871 ) (14,077,349 ) (14,592,503 ) (∂110,632 ) (∂515,154 ) 
208 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Federal Highway Administration 

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (360,992 ) (384,556 ) (377,556 ) (∂16,564 ) (¥7,000 ) Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (36,032,344 ) (38,000,000 ) (40,965,051 ) (∂4,932,707 ) (∂2,965,051 ) (Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (39,086,465 ) (39,585,075 ) (40,216,051 ) (∂1,129,586 ) (∂630,976 ) (Exempt contract authority) .............................................................................................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................(Transfer to NHTSA) ........................................................................................................................................... (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................

Congestion reduction initiative (leg. proposal) ......................................................................................................... ............................ (175,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥175,000 ) Pay raise (Sec. 111 of Public Law110–5) ................................................................................................................. 2,794 ............................ ............................ ¥2,794 ............................Appalachian development highway system ............................................................................................................... 19,800 ............................ 20,000 ∂200 ∂20,000 Delta Regional Authority ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Rescission of contract authority (Hwy Trust Fund) ................................................................................................... ¥3,471,582 ¥1,317,000 ¥2,890,000 ∂581,582 ¥1,573,000 Rescission of exempt contract authority (HTF) .......................................................................................................... ............................ ¥52,000 ............................ ............................ ∂52,000 Miscellaneous appropriations (rescission) ................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥149,000 ............................ ............................ ∂149,000 Miscellaneous highway trust funds (rescission) ....................................................................................................... ............................ ¥260,469 ............................ ............................ ∂260,469 2008 rescission of revenue-aligned budget authority ............................................................................................... ............................ ¥630,976 ............................ ............................ ∂630,976 Administration (rescission of contract authority) ...................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥43,359 ¥43,359 ¥43,359 TIFIA (rescission of contract authority) ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥187,146 ¥187,146 ¥187,146 

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... ¥3,448,988 ¥2,409,445 ¥3,080,505 ∂368,483 ¥671,060 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (22,594 ) ............................ (40,000 ) (∂17,406 ) (∂40,000 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥1,040,445 ) ............................ ............................ (∂1,040,445 ) Rescissions of contract authority ........................................................................................................ (¥3,471,582 ) (¥1,369,000 ) (¥3,120,505 ) (∂351,077 ) (¥1,751,505 ) Limitations on obligations) .................................................................................................................. (39,086,465 ) (39,585,075 ) (40,216,051 ) (∂1,129,586 ) (∂630,976 ) Exempt contract authority) .................................................................................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................Transfer out) ........................................................................................................................................ (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (36,255,245 ) (37,914,630 ) (37,874,546 ) (∂1,619,301 ) (¥40,084 ) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Motor carrier safety operations and programs (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ....... (223,000 ) (228,000 ) (231,470 ) (∂8,470 ) (∂3,470 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (223,000 ) (228,000 ) (231,470 ) (∂8,470 ) (∂3,470 ) 
209 

Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................... (294,000 ) (300,000 ) (300,000 ) (∂6,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (294,000 ) (300,000 ) (300,000 ) (∂6,000 ) ............................Rescission of contract authority ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥11,260 ¥11,260 ¥11,260 

National Motor Carrier Safety Program (HTF): Rescission of contract authority ...................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥5,213 ¥5,213 ¥5,213 Motor Carrier Safety (HTF): Rescission of contract authority .................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥32,188 ¥32,188 ¥32,188 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin ................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥48,661 ¥48,661 ¥48,661 (Limitations on obligations) ......................................................................................................................... (517,000 ) (528,000 ) (531,470 ) (∂14,470 ) (∂3,470 ) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Operations and research (general fund) ................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 124,406 ∂124,406 ∂124,406 Operations and research (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) .......................................... (107,750 ) (229,750 ) (107,750 ) ............................ (¥122,000 ) 

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (107,750 ) (229,750 ) (107,750 ) ............................ (¥122,000 ) (Transfer from FHWA) ........................................................................................................................................ (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................

Subtotal, Operations and research ............................................................................................................... (228,982 ) (229,750 ) (232,156 ) (∂3,174 ) (∂2,406 ) 

National Driver Register (Highway trust fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................... (4,000 ) (4,000 ) (4,000 ) ............................ ............................

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

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract authorization) ................................. (587,750 ) (599,250 ) (599,250 ) (∂11,500 ) ............................

(Limitation on obligations): 

Highway safety programs (Sec. 402) ....................................................................................................... (220,000 ) (225,000 ) (225,000 ) (∂5,000 ) ............................Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405) .................................................................................... (25,000 ) (25,000 ) (25,000 ) ............................ ............................Safety belt performance grants (Sec. 406) ............................................................................................. (124,500 ) (124,500 ) (124,500 ) ............................ ............................Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. 410) ................................................................ (125,000 ) (131,000 ) (131,000 ) (∂6,000 ) ............................State traffic safety information system improvement grants (Sec. 408) ............................................... (34,500 ) (34,500 ) (34,500 ) ............................ ............................High visibility enforcement ...................................................................................................................... (29,000 ) (29,000 ) (29,000 ) ............................ ............................Child safety and booster seat grants ...................................................................................................... (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) ............................ ............................Motorcyclist safety .................................................................................................................................... (6,000 ) (6,000 ) (6,000 ) ............................ ............................Grant administration ................................................................................................................................ (17,750 ) (18,250 ) (18,250 ) (∂500 ) ............................

Operations and Research: Rescission of contract authority ............................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥12,197 ¥12,197 ¥12,197 National Driver Register: Rescission of contract authority .............................................................................. ............................ ............................ ¥120 ¥120 ¥120 National Highway Traffic Safety Grants: Rescission of contract authority ...................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥10,529 ¥10,529 ¥10,529 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (587,750 ) (599,250 ) (576,404 ) (¥11,346 ) (¥22,846 ) Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 101,560 ∂101,560 ∂101,560 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (699,500 ) (833,000 ) (711,000 ) (∂11,500 ) (¥122,000 ) (by transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................Total budgetary resources ................................................................................................................... (820,732 ) (833,000 ) (812,560 ) (¥8,172 ) (¥20,440 ) 
210 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Federal Railroad Administration 

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

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ............................................................. 490,050 ............................ 485,000 ¥5,050 ∂485,000 Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation .............................................................................. 772,200 500,000 885,000 ∂112,800 ∂385,000 Efficiency incentive grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................................................. 31,300 300,000 ............................ ¥31,300 ¥300,000 

Total, National Railroad Passenger Corporation .......................................................................................... 1,293,550 800,000 1,370,000 ∂76,450 ∂570,000 Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 1,478,345 1,071,722 1,657,436 ∂179,091 ∂585,714 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (1,478,345 ) (1,080,722 ) (1,657,436 ) (∂179,091 ) (∂576,714 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ............................ (¥9,000 ) ............................ ............................ (∂9,000 ) 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrative expenses, general fund ...................................................................................................................... 85,000 89,300 88,795 ∂3,795 ¥505 

Office of the Administrator ............................................................................................................................... (1,063 ) ............................ (910 ) (¥153 ) (∂910 ) Office of Chief Counsel ..................................................................................................................................... (4,273 ) ............................ (4,545 ) (∂272 ) (∂4,545 ) Office of Civil Rights ........................................................................................................................................ (3,272 ) ............................ (3,235 ) (¥37 ) (∂3,235 ) Office of Communications and Congressional Affairs ..................................................................................... (1,394 ) ............................ (1,480 ) (∂86 ) (∂1,480 ) Office of Budget and Policy .............................................................................................................................. (9,259 ) ............................ (10,858 ) (∂1,599 ) (∂10,858 ) Office of Planning ............................................................................................................................................. (4,718 ) ............................ (4,458 ) (¥260 ) (∂4,458 ) Office of Program Management ........................................................................................................................ (8,403 ) ............................ (8,741 ) (∂338 ) (∂8,741 ) Office of Demonstration and Innovation ........................................................................................................... (4,876 ) ............................ (4,944 ) (∂68 ) (∂4,944 ) Office of Administration .................................................................................................................................... (7,654 ) ............................ (6,354 ) (¥1,300 ) (∂6,354 ) Central Account ................................................................................................................................................. (17,668 ) ............................ (20,719 ) (∂3,051 ) (∂20,719 ) 
211 

Regional offices ................................................................................................................................................. (22,420 ) ............................ (22,551 ) (∂131 ) (∂22,551 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (85,000 ) (89,300 ) (88,795 ) (∂3,795 ) (¥505 ) 

Formula and Bus Grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................... (7,262,775 ) (7,871,895 ) (7,872,893 ) (∂610,118 ) (∂998 ) Formula and Bus Grants (rescission) ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ¥28,661 ¥28,661 ¥28,661 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................................................................. (7,262,775 ) (7,871,895 ) (7,844,232 ) (∂581,457 ) (¥27,663 ) 

Research and University Research Centers ............................................................................................................... 61,000 61,000 65,500 ∂4,500 ∂4,500 Trust fund share of expenses (Mass Transit Account, HTF) (liquidation of contract authorization) ....................... (4,660,000 ) (6,855,000 ) (6,855,000 ) (∂2,195,000 ) ............................Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 1,566,000 1,399,818 1,566,000 ............................ ∂166,182 

Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,712,000 1,550,118 1,691,634 ¥20,366 ∂141,516 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (7,262,775 ) (7,871,895 ) (7,872,893 ) (∂610,118 ) (∂998 ) 

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (8,974,775 ) (9,422,013 ) (9,564,527 ) (∂589,752 ) (∂142,514 ) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

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

Maritime Administration 

Maritime security program ......................................................................................................................................... 154,440 154,440 156,000 ∂1,560 ∂1,560 Operations and training ............................................................................................................................................. 111,522 115,276 122,891 ∂11,369 ∂7,615 Ship disposal .............................................................................................................................................................. 20,790 20,000 18,000 ¥2,790 ¥2,000 Assistance for small shipyards .................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 ∂20,000 Vessel operations revolving fund ............................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................War risk insurance revolving fund ............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account: 

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 4,085 ............................ 3,408 ¥677 ∂3,408 Fund admin expenses with takedowns (leg. proposal) .................................................................................... ............................ (3,408 ) ............................ ............................ (¥3,408 ) Guarantee loans subsidy ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 10,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 

National defense tank vessel program (rescission) .................................................................................................. ¥74,400 ............................ ............................ ∂74,400 ............................Alteration of bridges .................................................................................................................................................. ............................ 5,650 ............................ ............................ ¥5,650 Ship construction (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥2,000 ............................ ¥4,615 ¥2,615 ¥4,615 

Total, Maritime Administration ..................................................................................................................... 214,437 295,366 325,684 ∂111,247 ∂30,318 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (290,837 ) (295,366 ) (330,299 ) (∂39,462 ) (∂34,933 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥76,400 ) ............................ (¥4,615 ) (∂71,785 ) (¥4,615 ) 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Hazardous materials safety ....................................................................................................................................... 26,723 27,003 27,003 ∂280 ............................
212 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 18,031 17,491 17,491 ¥540 ............................

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ 639 639 ∂639 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (44,754 ) (45,133 ) (45,133 ) (∂379 ) ............................

Pipeline safety: 

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 60,065 55,770 63,594 ∂3,529 ∂7,824 Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 14,850 18,810 18,810 ∂3,960 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (74,915 ) (74,580 ) (82,404 ) (∂7,489 ) (∂7,824 ) 

Emergency preparedness grants: 

Emergency preparedness fund .......................................................................................................................... 198 188 188 ¥10 ............................Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ................................................................................................... (14,798 ) (28,318 ) (28,318 ) (∂13,520 ) ............................

Total, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ................................................................. 134,665 148,219 156,043 ∂21,378 ∂7,824 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

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

Office of Inspector General 

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

Surface Transportation Board 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 26,313 23,085 25,000 ¥1,313 ∂1,915 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ¥1,250 ............................ ............................

Total, Surface Transportation Board ............................................................................................................ 25,063 21,835 23,750 ¥1,313 ∂1,915 Total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................................................................. 11,326,832 12,168,952 12,132,732 ∂805,900 ¥36,220 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (15,545,814 ) (14,609,397 ) (15,565,520 ) (∂19,706 ) (∂956,123 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥126,400 ) (¥1,071,445 ) (¥55,276 ) (∂71,124 ) (∂1,016,169 ) 
213 

Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥4,092,582 ) (¥1,369,000 ) (¥3,377,512 ) (∂715,070 ) (¥2,008,512 ) (Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (51,080,240 ) (51,571,378 ) (52,845,914 ) (∂1,765,674 ) (∂1,274,536 ) (Exempt contract authority) ................................................................................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................(Transfer out) ....................................................................................................................................... (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (63,146,072 ) (64,479,330 ) (65,717,646 ) (∂2,571,574 ) (∂1,238,316 ) Transportation discretionary total ................................................................................................................ 11,326,832 12,168,952 12,132,732 ∂805,900 ¥36,220 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Office of the Secretary 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 3,930 ∂3,930 ∂3,930 

Executive Operations 

Salaries and expenses: 

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

Total, Executive Operations .......................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 156,670 ∂156,670 ∂156,670 

Administrative Activities 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,480 ∂1,480 ∂1,480 Administration salaries and expenses .............................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 252,010 ∂252,010 ∂252,010 Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 12,520 ∂12,520 ∂12,520 Office of Field Policy and Management ............................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 47,730 ∂47,730 ∂47,730 

Total, Administrative Activities ..................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 313,740 ∂313,740 ∂313,740 
214 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Public and Indian Housing 

Salaries and expenses: 

Assistant Secretary For Public and Indian Housing ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,620 ∂1,620 ∂1,620 Housing salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 188,340 ∂188,340 ∂188,340 

Total, salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 189,960 ∂189,960 ∂189,960 

Tenant-based Rental Assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 14,443,200 14,437,506 14,936,200 ∂493,000 ∂498,694 Tenant protection vouchers ............................................................................................................................... 149,300 150,000 150,000 ∂700 ............................Family self-sufficiency coordinators ................................................................................................................. 47,500 48,000 50,000 ∂2,500 ∂2,000 Administrative fees ........................................................................................................................................... 1,281,100 1,351,000 1,351,000 ∂69,900 ............................Incremental family unification vouchers .......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 30,000 ∂30,000 ∂30,000 Veterans affairs supportive housing ................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 75,000 ∂75,000 ∂75,000 Working capital fund ......................................................................................................................................... 5,900 6,494 6,494 ∂594 ............................

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (15,927,000 ) (15,993,000 ) (16,598,694 ) (∂671,694 ) (∂605,694 ) 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–148) ............................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Advance appropriations ..................................................................................................................................... 4,193,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ∂7,000 ............................Less appropriations from prior year advances ................................................................................................. ¥4,200,000 ¥4,193,000 ¥4,193,000 ∂7,000 ............................

Total, Tenant-based rental assistance ......................................................................................................... 15,920,000 16,000,000 16,795,654 ∂875,654 ∂795,654 

Project-based rental assistance: 

Renewals ........................................................................................................................................................... 5,829,303 5,522,810 5,522,810 ¥306,493 ............................Contract administrators .................................................................................................................................... 145,728 286,230 286,230 ∂140,502 ............................Working capital fund ......................................................................................................................................... 1,386 3,960 3,960 ∂2,574 ............................

Total, Project-based rental assistance ......................................................................................................... 5,976,417 5,813,000 5,813,000 ¥163,417 ............................

Public Housing Capital Fund ..................................................................................................................................... 2,438,964 2,024,000 2,500,000 ∂61,036 ∂476,000 Public Housing Operating Fund ................................................................................................................................. 3,864,000 4,000,000 4,200,000 ∂336,000 ∂200,000 
215 

Revitalization of severely distressed public housing ................................................................................................ 99,000 ............................ 100,000 ∂1,000 ∂100,000 

Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥99,000 ............................ ............................ ∂99,000 

Native American housing block grants ...................................................................................................................... 623,700 626,965 630,000 ∂6,300 ∂3,035 Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ............................................................................................ 6,000 7,450 7,450 ∂1,450 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (116,276 ) (367,000 ) (367,000 ) (∂250,724 ) ............................

Native Hawaiian housing block grant ....................................................................................................................... 8,727 5,940 9,000 ∂273 ∂3,060 Native Hawaiian loan guarantee fund program account .......................................................................................... 891 1,044 1,044 ∂153 ............................

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (35,714 ) (41,504 ) (41,504 ) (∂5,790 ) ............................

Total, Public and Indian Housing ................................................................................................................. 28,937,699 28,379,399 30,056,148 ∂1,118,449 ∂1,676,749 

Community Planning and Development 

Salaries and expenses: 

Assistant Secretary for Community and Planning Development ...................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,520 ∂1,520 ∂1,520 Community Planning and Development salaries and expenses ....................................................................... ............................ ............................ 93,770 ∂93,770 ∂93,770 

Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 95,290 ∂95,290 ∂95,290 

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................ 286,110 300,100 300,100 ∂13,990 ............................Rural housing and economic development ................................................................................................................ 16,830 ............................ 17,000 ∂170 ∂17,000 Community development fund ................................................................................................................................... 3,771,900 3,036,570 4,060,000 ∂288,100 ∂1,023,430 Section 108 loan guarantees: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (137,500 ) ............................ (275,000 ) (∂137,500 ) (∂275,000 ) Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 2,970 ............................ 6,000 ∂3,030 ∂6,000 Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 743 ............................ ............................ ¥743 ............................

Brownfields redevelopment ........................................................................................................................................ 9,900 ............................ 10,000 ∂100 ∂10,000 HOME investment partnerships program ................................................................................................................... 1,757,250 1,966,640 1,970,000 ∂212,750 ∂3,360 Homeless assistance grants ...................................................................................................................................... 1,441,600 1,585,990 1,585,990 ∂144,390 ............................Self-help homeownership opportunity program ......................................................................................................... 49,390 69,700 70,000 ∂20,610 ∂300 

Total, Community Planning and Development .................................................................................................. 7,336,693 6,959,000 8,114,380 ∂777,687 ∂1,155,380 

Housing Programs 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Assistant Secretary For Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner ............................................. ............................ ............................ 3,420 ∂3,420 ∂3,420 Housing salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 351,560 ∂351,560 ∂351,560 

Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 354,980 ∂354,980 ∂354,980 

Housing for the elderly ............................................................................................................................................... 734,580 575,000 735,000 ∂420 ∂160,000 Housing for persons with disabilities ........................................................................................................................ 236,610 125,000 237,000 ∂390 ∂112,000 
216 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Housing counseling assistance .................................................................................................................................. ............................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 Manufactured housing fees trust fund ...................................................................................................................... 13,000 16,000 16,000 ∂3,000 ............................

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ............................ ............................Offsetting collections (legislative proposal) ..................................................................................................... ............................ ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ............................

Rental housing assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 26,136 27,600 27,600 ∂1,464 ............................

Total, Housing Programs ................................................................................................................................... 997,326 777,600 1,354,580 ∂357,254 ∂576,980 

Federal Housing Administration 

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (185,000,000 ) (185,000,000 ) (185,000,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 351,450 351,450 ............................ ¥351,450 ¥351,450 Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥176,000 ............................ ............................ ∂176,000 ............................Administrative contract expenses ..................................................................................................................... 61,974 77,400 77,400 ∂15,426 ............................

FHA—General and special risk program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (45,000,000 ) (35,000,000 ) (45,000,000 ) ............................ (∂10,000,000 ) (Limitation on direct loans) .............................................................................................................................. (50,000 ) (50,000 ) (50,000 ) ............................ ............................Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................................... 229,086 229,086 ............................ ¥229,086 ¥229,086 Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥476,000 ¥230,000 ¥230,000 ∂246,000 ............................Credit subsidy ................................................................................................................................................... 8,712 8,600 8,600 ¥112 ............................Right of first refusal ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 5,000 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Non-overhead administrative expenses ............................................................................................................ 71,181 78,111 78,111 ∂6,930 ............................Administrative fee increase .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ............................Move single-family programs to MMI (leg. proposal) ...................................................................................... ............................ 22,000 ............................ ............................ ¥22,000 

Total, Federal Housing Administration ......................................................................................................... 70,403 516,647 ¥80,889 ¥151,292 ¥597,536 

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 9,530 ∂9,530 ∂9,530 
217 

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account: 

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................ (200,000,000 ) (100,000,000 ) (200,000,000 ) ............................ (∂100,000,000 ) Administrative expenses ........................................................................................................................... 10,700 11,000 ............................ ¥10,700 ¥11,000 Consolidate admin expenses (Sec 312) (leg. proposal) .......................................................................... ............................ (43,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥43,000 ) Offsetting receipts .................................................................................................................................... ¥181,000 ¥163,000 ¥163,000 ∂18,000 ............................Move single-family prgms from GSRI (leg. proposal) ............................................................................. ............................ ¥22,000 ............................ ............................ ∂22,000 

Total, Gov’t National Mortgage Association ........................................................................................ ¥170,300 ¥174,000 ¥153,470 ∂16,830 ∂20,530 

Policy Development and Research 

Salaries and expenses: 

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research .............................................................................. ............................ ............................ 1,570 ∂1,570 ∂1,570 Policy Development and Research salaries and expenses ............................................................................... ............................ ............................ 19,310 ∂19,310 ∂19,310 

Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 20,880 ∂20,880 ∂20,880 

Research and technology ........................................................................................................................................... 50,087 65,040 59,040 ∂8,953 ¥6,000 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

Salaries and expenses: 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,490 ∂1,490 ∂1,490 Fair and Equal Opportunity salaries and expenses ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 69,390 ∂69,390 ∂69,390 

Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 70,880 ∂70,880 ∂70,880 

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

Office of Lead Hazard Control 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 6,140 ∂6,140 ∂6,140 Lead hazard reduction ............................................................................................................................................... 150,480 116,000 151,000 ∂520 ∂35,000 

Total, Office of Lead Hazard Control ............................................................................................................ 150,480 116,000 157,140 ∂6,660 ∂41,140 

Management and Administration 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 581,108 654,092 ............................ ¥581,108 ¥654,092 

GSE regulator/HUD oversight (leg. proposal) .................................................................................................... ............................ ¥4,000 ............................ ............................ ∂4,000 

Transfer from: 

Limitation on FHA corporate funds ................................................................................................. (562,400 ) (556,776 ) ............................ (¥562,400 ) (¥556,776 ) GNMA ............................................................................................................................................... (10,700 ) (10,700 ) ............................ (¥10,700 ) (¥10,700 ) Community Development Loan Guarantees Program ...................................................................... (750 ) ............................ ............................ (¥750 ) ............................Native American Housing Block Grants .......................................................................................... (150 ) (149 ) ............................ (¥150 ) (¥149 ) 
218 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 appropriation Budget estimate 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program ............................................................................. (250 ) (248 ) ............................ (¥250 ) (¥248 ) Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees ................................................................................... (35 ) (35 ) ............................ (¥35 ) (¥35 ) 

Subtotal ....................................................................................................................................... (1,155,393 ) (1,218,000 ) ............................ (¥1,155,393 ) (¥1,218,000 ) 

Working capital fund .................................................................................................................................................. 195,356 220,000 175,000 ¥20,356 ¥45,000 Office of Inspector General ........................................................................................................................................ 81,853 88,240 112,000 ∂30,147 ∂23,760 

(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) ............................................................................................. (23,760 ) (23,760 ) ............................ (¥23,760 ) (¥23,760 ) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (105,613 ) (112,000 ) (112,000 ) (∂6,387 ) ............................

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ........................................................................................................ 60,000 66,000 66,000 ∂6,000 ............................

Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................................. ¥60,000 ¥66,000 ¥66,000 ¥6,000 ............................

Total, Management and Administration ....................................................................................................... 858,317 958,332 287,000 ¥571,317 ¥671,332 

Rescissions: 

Housing certificate fund ................................................................................................................................... ¥1,650,000 ¥1,300,000 ¥1,100,000 ∂550,000 ∂200,000 Rental housing assistance (rescission) ............................................................................................................ ............................ ¥27,600 ¥27,600 ¥27,600 ............................Brownfields Redevelopment .............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Community Development Fund .......................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥356,400 ............................ ............................ ∂356,400 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,650,000 ¥1,684,000 ¥1,127,600 ∂522,400 ∂556,400 

FHA Proposals: 

Remove HECM cap/set nat’l loan limit ............................................................................................................ ............................ ¥333,000 ¥512,000 ¥512,000 ¥179,000 Increase multifamily loan limit ......................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥14,000 ¥28,000 ¥28,000 ¥14,000 GNMA six basis point premium ........................................................................................................................ ............................ ¥15,000 ............................ ............................ ∂15,000 

Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................................................. 36,626,245 35,597,018 38,744,429 ∂2,118,184 ∂3,147,411 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (34,989,245 ) (33,675,018 ) (36,167,029 ) (∂1,177,784 ) (∂2,492,011 ) Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥1,650,000 ) (¥1,783,000 ) (¥1,127,600 ) (∂522,400 ) (∂655,400 ) Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,193,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (∂7,000 ) ............................
219 

Emergency appropriations ................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting receipts ............................................................................................................................... (¥833,000 ) (¥413,000 ) (¥413,000 ) (∂420,000 ) ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥73,000 ) (¥82,000 ) (¥82,000 ) (¥9,000 ) ............................

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ ............................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................................................................. (430,289,490 ) (320,408,504 ) (430,683,504 ) (∂394,014 ) (∂110,275,000 ) (Limitation on corporate funds) ................................................................................................................... (598,045 ) (591,668 ) ............................ (¥598,045 ) (¥591,668 ) 

TITLE III—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board .................................................................................. 5,915 6,150 6,150 ∂235 ............................Federal Maritime Commission .................................................................................................................................... 20,428 22,322 22,322 ∂1,894 ............................National Transportation Safety Board: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 79,338 83,000 84,500 ∂5,162 ∂1,500 Rescission of unobligated balances ................................................................................................................. ¥1,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,000 ............................

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................................... 116,820 119,800 119,800 ∂2,980 ............................United States Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................ 1,788 2,320 2,300 ∂512 ¥20 

Total, title III, Other Independent Agencies ................................................................................................. 223,289 233,592 235,072 ∂11,783 ∂1,480 Grand total (net) ........................................................................................................................................... 48,174,326 47,999,562 51,112,233 ∂2,937,907 ∂3,112,671 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (50,759,348 ) (48,518,007 ) (51,967,621 ) (∂1,208,273 ) (∂3,449,614 ) Emergency appropriations ................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... (¥73,000 ) (¥82,000 ) (¥82,000 ) (¥9,000 ) ............................Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... (¥1,727,400 ) (¥2,832,445 ) (¥1,160,876 ) (∂566,524 ) (∂1,671,569 ) Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥4,092,582 ) (¥1,369,000 ) (¥3,377,512 ) (∂715,070 ) (¥2,008,512 ) Negative subsidy receipts .................................................................................................................... (¥833,000 ) (¥413,000 ) (¥413,000 ) (∂420,000 ) ............................Advance appropriations ....................................................................................................................... (4,193,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (4,200,000 ) (∂7,000 ) ............................(Limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................................. (51,080,240 ) (51,571,378 ) (52,845,914 ) (∂1,765,674 ) (∂1,274,536 ) (Exempt contract authority) ................................................................................................................. (739,000 ) (739,000 ) (739,000 ) ............................ ............................

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................ (121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (¥121,232 ) ............................(Transfer out) .............................................................................................................................. (¥121,232 ) ............................ ............................ (∂121,232 ) ............................

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................................ (99,995,606 ) (100,309,940 ) (104,697,147 ) (∂4,701,541 ) (∂4,387,207 ) 

Æ