36–708 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–238 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008 

JULY 18, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. OLVER, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3074] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the 

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2008. 

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Major challenges facing transportation and housing over the next decade ............................................................................................................

Projects ........................................................................................................

Solvency of highway trust fund ................................................................

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

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

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

Tabular summary .......................................................................................

Committee hearings ...................................................................................

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

Title I—Department of Transportation ....................................................

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ...................

Title III—Related Agencies .......................................................................

Title IV—General Provisions ....................................................................

House of Representatives Report Requirements: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
2 

Page number 

Bill Report 

Constitutional authority ..............................................................

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

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

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

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

Recissions .....................................................................................

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

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

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

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

Earmarks ......................................................................................

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

MAJOR CHALLENGES FACING TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING OVER

THE NEXT DECADE

Earlier this year, the Committee held a series of hearings to explore the emerging challenges facing our nation’s transportation 

and housing programs over the next decade. The testimony the 

Committee received from housing and transportation experts made 

clear that demographic changes and growth patterns in the United 

States will continue to have a major impact on transportation networks and the need for affordable housing. 

Some areas of the nation are losing population and as a result, 

lack an adequate tax base or the necessary resources to make investments in transportation and housing. 

Other areas of our nation are growing dramatically. For example, 

the population of the United States recently reached 300 million, 

and is expected to grow by another 65 million by the year 2030. 

The 30 largest metropolitan statistical areas as defined by the U.S. 

census bureau now represent close to half (45 percent) of the country’s total population. From 1990 to 2005, the population of 15 of 

the 30 largest metropolitan areas grew by over 20 percent, with 

some metro areas in Florida, Arizona, California, and Georgia 

growing by over 50 percent. 

Each region has its own unique set of challenges in managing 

population growth. The existing transportation networks in older 

metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest will continue to 

have increasing repair and maintenance needs, as well as demand 

for new transit service. The metropolitan areas that have seen the 

most explosive growth, mostly in the South and West, will continue 

to require new investments in highway, transit, and aviation to 

keep up with traveling demand. 

Explosive population growth, combined with the rise of households with two automobiles and increasingly decentralized and unplanned patterns of growth present significant challenges for the 

nation’s transportation, housing, and energy policies on the federal, 

state, and local level. 

Increasing congestion has become the most noticeable consequence of these demographic changes. As residential communities become more separated from employment areas, traffic congestion has become a part of everyday life for many families. 

Vehicle-miles traveled on our nation’s highways have grown 

nearly 94 percent from roughly 1.53 trillion miles in 1980 to nearly 

3 trillion miles in 2005. According to the Texas Transportation InVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.000 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
3 

stitute, in 2003 drivers in the 85 most congested urban areas in the 

United States experienced 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, an annual average delay of 47 hours per commuter. Furthermore, congestion caused travelers to use 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel for 

a total cost of $63,100,000,000 or $794 per commuter. 

Increased travel demand will continue to deteriorate existing 

transportation networks and put pressure on states to build more 

capacity. The Department of Transportation estimates that 

$53,600,000,000 per year will be required to sustain the nation’s 

highways, bridges, and transit systems. A far higher level of investment, $74,800,000,000 would be required each year to improve 

these systems. With regard to transit, it is estimated that an annual investment of $24,000,000,000 would be necessary to improve 

the condition and performance of our nation’s public transportation 

systems. 

In addition, while Amtrak, our nation’s intercity passenger rail 

system, has made some progress in increasing ridership and revenues, much work remains ahead before higher speed rail is realized 

in corridors outside the Northeast. 

Our nation’s transportation challenges are not just limited to 

surface transportation. Our aviation system also continues to grow. 

For example, from 1995 to 2005, the number of airline passengers 

grew by 36 percent from 545 million per year to 739 million. By 

2015, our aviation system is expected to transport as many as one 

billion passengers. Additionally, our nation’s air traffic control system is aging and is in need of modernization in order to accommodate the growth in air traffic and the expected changes in the aviation fleet. 

Our nation also faces great challenges in the area of housing. 

Providing adequate affordable housing near employment opportunities and public transportation will be daunting. Currently, there 

are nearly 14 million households with incomes below 50 percent of 

adjusted median income (AMI) which are eligible for federal housing assistance, however, only 25 percent of these eligible households actually receive federal housing assistance. 

As such, the Committee recognizes that a great unmet need exists for affordable housing throughout the country. For example, 

only 2.1 million Section 8 vouchers are authorized despite the fact 

that an estimated 8 million families and individuals are eligible for 

this assistance. 

In public housing, the situation is no better. Public housing is 

home to 2.6 million people, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income families. In 2005, the median income of families in the public housing program was $10,738, only 23 percent of 

the national median household income of $46,326. Public housing 

is a valuable social and economic asset that cannot be created or 

sustained by the private market. In fact, it would cost an estimated 

$162,000,000,000 to replace the existing stock of 1.2 million public 

housing units, yet the budget request for public housing is perennially too low to support annual capital needs, much less address 

the $18 billion backlog in capital needs. More than half of public 

housing units were constructed prior to 1970 and are in need of rehabilitation and serious capital investment. The Committee recognizes that public housing is an irreplaceable asset and that it will 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
4 

require significant capital investment to continue to provide its 2.6 

million residents with safe and affordable homes. 

The Committee is cognizant of the fact that it must begin to address the shortage of affordable housing for families, seniors and 

the disabled immediately. It is also incumbent upon the Department of Housing and Urban Development to explore new means of 

financing and innovative methods of partnering with nonprofits 

and with the private sector to spur more housing production. 

In addition to the budgetary challenges presented above, the 

Committee strongly believes that transportation, housing, and energy can no longer be viewed as completely separate spheres with 

little or no coordination throughout the different levels of government. To that effect, the Committee has included provisions in this 

report requiring the Departments of Transportation and Housing 

and Urban Development to better coordinate public transportation 

and housing policies and programs. Better planning and coordination on the federal, state, and local level can ensure that affordable 

housing is located closer to public transportation and employment 

centers. 

Finally, as the United States continues to grapple with the catastrophic effects of global warming and other environmental hazards, the Committee strongly believes that federal policies must be 

instituted to reduce the amount of energy consumed by the transportation and housing sectors. Taken together, transportation (28 

percent) and residential housing (21 percent) produce almost 50 

percent of total U.S. energy consumption. (Source 2004 Energy 

Data Book, DoE). To this end, the Committee has included a number of key investments for public transit and intercity rail. The 

Committee has also included language urging HUD to incorporate 

stronger sustainability standards into HUD’s housing programs. 

PROJECTS

Congress has made significant reforms in the way it reviews 

funding for the Federal government; reforms which the Committee 

takes very seriously as it executes its constitutional authority. Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars does not begin 

with Congress. It begins with the Executive Branch. For example, 

the Administration requests funding for specific projects within the 

Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grant account 

and within the Federal Aviation Administration’s Facilities and 

Equipment account. The Administration, in selecting these 

projects, goes through a process that is the functional equivalent of 

earmarking. When the Committee reviews the budget request, it 

goes through a process of rigorous review and may alter or modify 

this list to reflect additional priorities. 

In addition, there are designated projects or earmarks embedded 

in the surface transportation authorization legislation. For example, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) includes designated projects or 

earmarks during each year of its authorization. For example, in fiscal year 2008 alone, SAFETEA–LU directs $2,966,400,000 to 5,091 

specific projects under the ‘‘High Priority Projects’’ program; 

$487,000,000 to 33 specific projects under the ‘‘National Corridor 

Infrastructure Improvement Program’’; $444,750,000 to 25 specific 

projects under the ‘‘Projects of National and Regional Significance’’ 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
5 

program; $638,809,000 to 466 specific projects under the ‘‘Transportation Improvements’’ program; and $100,000,000 to nine specific 

projects under the ‘‘Bridge Program’’ set-aside. Similarly, in the 

transit program, SAFETEA–LU directs $492,167,593 to 662 specific 

bus and clean fuel bus projects and $22,225,000 to 24 specific transit research projects. 

The Executive Branch also engages in another practice which 

steers or directs money to specific entities or purposes through a 

process of contracting out various activities and services. In many 

work locations, the number of people working for contractors exceeds the number of Federal employees in the same building or location. Many of these, in fact, are non-competitive or sole-sourced. 

When added together, the Executive Branch steers or directs far 

greater spending to specific projects or corporations than is directed 

or earmarked by Congress. And the practice of non-competitive contracting has exploded in the past five years. 

For example: 

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Department of Transportation awarded 225 sole-source contracts totaling more $140 million. 

From FY2002–2006, HUD awarded contracts worth over $4.2 

billion dollars, but only had a full and open competition on approximately 46 percent of their contract awards. 

HUD awarded more than $500,000 in no-bid contracts to the 

executive director of the Virgin Islands PHA to improve that PHA’s 

operations. 

On February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a $1.8 billion, 5–year, 

fixed-price incentive contract to operate 58 flight service stations in 

the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. However, 

the contract has been plagued with technical and operational problems with the program, which include system outages, computer 

glitches, lost flight plans, excessive hold times, dropped calls, and 

poor quality service. 

The Committee believes that the extensive use of noncompetitive 

contracts increases the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse of federal dollars. Each of the above examples reaffirms the importance 

of sound internal controls and fraud deterrence measures in federal 

contracting. The Committee urges both the Department of Transportation and HUD to improve its contract policies to better protect 

taxpayer dollars. The Committee intends to carefully monitor the 

contracting practices of the agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

SOLVENCY OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

The Committee is greatly concerned about the status of the Highway Trust Fund. Both the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office are projecting that the Highway Account of 

the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will have a negative cash balance 

by the end of fiscal year 2009. The Mass Transit Account of the 

Highway Trust Fund faces a similar fate, however, at a slightly 

slower pace. The Mass Transit Account is expected to reach a negative balance by fiscal year 2011. The Committee was disappointed 

that, despite the precarious financial state of the Highway Trust 

Fund, the budget request did not include any serious proposals to 

address the looming shortfall. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
6 

It is well documented that our nation’s transportation infrastructure is aging and, as noted above, the investment needs of our nation’s highway and transit systems are significant. Unfortunately, 

in each of the last six years (2001–2006), expenditures have exceeded receipts into the Highway Trust Fund. The highway guarantees 

were based upon the principle that the highway program would be 

funded solely from a dedicated revenue source financed by user 

fees. However, that funding source was overcommitted by the authorizing legislation and the principles behind the guarantees have 

been undermined. 

Without additional revenues for transportation investment, the 

nation will be unable to reduce congestion, maintain aging bridges 

and highways, or expand capacity. In short, the looming crisis in 

the HTF will hinder the nation’s ability to meet the transportation 

challenges outlined above. The Committee believes that there will 

be sufficient resources in the HTF to meet the guaranteed highway 

and transit funding levels required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU) in fiscal year 2008. However, the Committee will 

continue to carefully monitor the balances in the HTF to determine 

whether the guaranteed funding levels are sustainable. 

In addition, the Committee understands that SAFETEA–LU established two commissions to examine the investment needs and 

revenue options for our nation’s surface transportation system. The 

Committee anxiously awaits the recommendations of these commissions and expects the authorizing committees of jurisdiction to take 

prompt action to restore the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 

to ensure that much needed transportation investments can continue to occur in the years ahead. 

THE EFFECT OF GUARANTEED SPENDING

Nearly a decade ago, in 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA–21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act 

and created, over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget 

Committees, two new additional spending categories or ‘firewalls’, 

the highway category and the mass transit category. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU) extended the highway and mass transit 

firewalls through fiscal year 2009. Similar treatment was provided 

for certain aviation programs with the passage of the Wendell H. 

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR–2l) and were later extended in the Vision–l00 Century of 

Aviation Reauthorization Act. As the Committee noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts fundamentally established mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally important 

programs within the Committee’s jurisdiction not protected by 

funding guarantees and to address emerging priorities. This year, 

with a more focused jurisdiction, the funding for critical housing 

programs for low-income families must compete for scarce federal 

resources with transportation programs that enjoy a funding guarantee. In addition, funding guarantees skew transportation priorities inappropriately by providing increases to highway, transit, 

and airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the 

Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad Administration 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
7 

and Amtrak to scramble for the remaining resources. As in past 

years, the Committee has done all in its power, considering this environment, to produce a balanced bill providing adequately for all 

modes of transportation as well as all non-transportation programs 

under the jurisdiction of this bill. 

OPERATING PLAN AND REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES

The Committee continues to have a particular interest in being 

informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not change 

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

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

The Committee directs the departments, agencies, corporations 

and offices funded within this bill, to notify the Committee prior to 

increasing any program, activity, object classification or element in 

excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less. Likewise, the 

Committee directs the same entities noted above to not decrease 

any program, activity, object classification or element by $5,000,000 

or 10 percent, whichever is less. Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of all reprogramming actions which 

involve less than the above-mentioned amounts. If such actions 

would have the effect of significantly changing an agency’s funding 

requirements in future years, or if programs or projects specifically 

cited in the Committee’s reports are affected by the reprogramming, the reprogramming must be approved by the Committee regardless of the amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the 

Committee must be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, 

programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of 

such reorganizations. 

The Committee also directs that the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

shall submit operating plans, signed by the respective secretary for 

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

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

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

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

relationship between these organizations and the Committee which 

makes such a relationship workable. The Committee reiterates its 

longstanding position that while the Committee reserves the right 

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

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

workload generated by the budget process is large and growing, 

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


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
8 

TABULAR SUMMARY

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2007 

and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2008 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

In addition to the hearings noted above, the Committee also conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided 

for in this bill. Pursuant to House rules, each of these hearings was 

open to the public. The Committee received testimony from cabinet 

officers, agency heads, inspectors general, and other officials of the 

executive branch in areas under the bill’s jurisdiction. In addition, 

the Committee has considered written material submitted for the 

hearing record by Members of Congress, private citizens, local government entities, and private organizations. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2008 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. 

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’ shall mean 

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

joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This 

definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget 

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

grants within the Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the 

percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to 

funds appropriated for facilities and equipment within the Federal 

Aviation Administration shall be applied equally to each budget 

item that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications 

submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

as modified by subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying 

committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $84,553,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 96,197,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 90,678,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +6,125,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥5,519,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
9 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill provides $90,678,000 for the salaries and expenses of the 

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

years, rather than consolidating them as proposed in the budget request. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget requested a 14 percent increase above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level for the salaries and expenses of the office of the secretary. 

The Committee understands that as of March 31, 2007, there were 

as many as 120 vacancies throughout the various secretarial offices. Given these vacancies and other budgetary constraints, the 

Committee recommendation includes a more modest increase in 

each of the offices. However, the Committee will continue to closely 

monitor the Department’s progress in filling staff vacancies to determine whether additional resources will be needed. The following 

table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted level to the fiscal year 

2008 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation by office: 

Fiscal year 2007 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2008 

estimate 

House recommended 

Immediate office of the secretary ........................................................ $2,197,000 $2,314,000 $2,305,000 

Office of the deputy secretary .............................................................. 697,000 737,000 724,000 

Office of the executive secretariat ....................................................... 1,441,000 1,535,000 1,498,000 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy .................. 11,635,000 12,374,000 12,100,000 

Board of contract appeals .................................................................... 696,000 — — 

Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization .................. 1,264,000 1,335,000 1,314,000 

Office of the chief information officer ................................................. 11,801,000 12,587,000 12,273,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs ................. 2,291,000 2,384,000 2,382,000 

Office of the general counsel ............................................................... 15,148,000 16,219,000 15,753,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs ............... 8,465,000 10,417,000 8,903,000 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration ........................... 21,880,000 26,008,000 23,568,000 

Office of public affairs ......................................................................... 1,908,000 1,988,000 1,984,000 

Office of intelligence and security ....................................................... 2,027,000 2,737,000 2,737,000 

Office of emergency transportation ...................................................... 3,103,000 5,562,000 5,137,000 

Total 1 ...................................................................................... 84,553,000 96,197,000 90,678,000 

1 Numbers don’t add due to rounding. 

Immediate office of the secretary.—The Immediate Office of the 

Secretary has the primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. The Committee 

recommends an appropriation of $2,305,000 for expenses of the immediate office of the secretary, which represents an increase of 

$108,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $9,000 below 

the level assumed in the budget request. 

Immediate office of the deputy secretary.—The Immediate Office 

of the Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility to assist the 

Secretary in the overall planning, direction and control of the departmental affairs. The Deputy Secretary serves as the chief operating officer of the day to day operations of the Department of 

Transportation. The Committee recommends $724,000 for expenses 

of the immediate office of the deputy secretary, which is an increase of $27,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$13,000 below the budget request. 

Executive secretariat.—The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
10 

functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. The Committee recommends an 

appropriation of $1,498,000 for expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $57,000 more than the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $37,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. 

Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy.—The Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy serves as 

the Department’s chief policy officer responsible for international 

standards development and harmonization; aviation and other 

transportation-related trade negotiations; coordination and development of departmental policy and legislative initiatives; the performance of policy and economic analysis; and the execution of the 

essential air service program. The Committee provides a total of 

$12,100,000 for the office of the under secretary of transportation 

for policy which represents an increase of $465,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level and a reduction of $274,000 below the requested level. The Committee denies the budget request to move 

two FTEs from the Office of Intelligence and Security into the policy office. 

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

Office of small and disadvantaged business utilization.—The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is responsible 

for promoting small and disadvantaged business participation in 

the department’s procurement and grants programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,314,000 for the office of 

small and disadvantaged business utilization, which represents an 

increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$21,000 below the level requested in the budget request. 

Office of the chief information officer.—The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and information 

systems management. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,273,000 for the office of the chief information officer, 

which is an increase of $472,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $314,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. 

Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs.—The 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, intergovernmental, 

and consumer activities of the department. The Committee recommendation includes $2,382,000 for the office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs, which represents an increase of 

$91,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $2,000 below 

the budget request. 

In addition, the bill continues a provision (sec. 187) that requires 

the department to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the department or its 

modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary program of the 

Federal Highway Administration other than the emergency relief 

program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and (3) any program of the Federal Transit 

Administration program other than the formula grants and fixed 

guideway modernization programs. Such notification shall include 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
11 

the date on which the official announcement of the grant is to be 

made and no such announcement shall involve funds that are not 

available for obligation. 

Office of the general counsel.—The Office of the General Counsel 

provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief counsels’ offices of the 

operating administrations. The Committee recommends 

$15,753,000 for the office of general counsel, which represents an 

increase of $605,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and 

$466,000 less than the budget request. 

Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs.—The 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget resource requirements 

for the department to the Secretary, Congress and the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,903,000 for the office of the assistant secretary for 

budget and programs, which represents an increase of $438,000 

over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $1,514,000 below the 

level requested in the budget. 

Office of the assistant secretary for administration.—The Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various accounting, procurement, personnel management, and automatic data processing operations of the department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,568,000 for expenses of the office of the assistant 

secretary for administration, which represents an increase of 

$1,688,000 from the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $2,440,000 

below the level assumed in the budget request. 

Office of public affairs.—The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials of the department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,984,000 for expenses of 

the office of public affairs, which represents an increase of $76,000 

above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $4,000 below the level 

assumed in the budget request. 

Office of intelligence and security.—The Office of Intelligence and 

Security serves as the Department’s primary point of contact with 

the Homeland Security Counsel and the Department of Homeland 

Security. The office provides intelligence and security oversight of 

the operating administrations to increase the safety and security of 

the traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy Secretary with current intelligence and security information, with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats to transportation interests. The Committee recommends an appropriation of 

$2,737,000 for expenses of the office of intelligence and security, 

which is an increase of $710,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and the same level assumed in the budget request. The Committee denies the transfer to two FTEs to the policy office and reduces the requested increase for contract services by a similar 

amount. 

Deny transfer of two FTEs to the Policy Office .................................. +$250,000 

Reduce contract services ....................................................................... ¥250,000 

Office of emergency transportation.—The Office of Emergency 

Transportation coordinates the Department’s participation in National and Regional exercises; conducts training for emergency perVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.000 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
12 

sonnel; administers the Continuity of Government and Continuity 

of Operations programs; and coordinates DOT’s role in contingency 

planning and response activities. In light of the hurricane disasters 

in 2005, the Department of Transportation has been charged with 

the expanded responsibility of coordinating mass evacuations when 

disasters overcome the capabilities of state and local governments. 

Given these new responsibilities, the Inspector General has noted 

that the Department must ensure that roles and responsibilities 

are carefully defined and that there is effective communication and 

coordination with other Federal agencies. The Committee recommendation includes $5,137,000 for the office of emergency response, which is $2,034,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $425,000 below the budget request. Within the amounts 

provided, the Committee includes $305,000 for two additional FTEs 

for the manager and assistant manager positions for the DOT 

Emergency Transportation Center. The Committee provides halfyear funding for three additional FTEs to assist with emergency 

preparedness planning, training and response. The Committee denies the request for $150,000 for additional contract and consultant 

support and encourages the office to leverage the expertise available in the modal administrations. 

Reduce funding for emergency transportation staff ........................... ¥$275,000 

Reduce contract and consultant services ............................................. ¥150,000 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee directs the 

department to include the same level of detail that was provided 

in the congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2003. 

Some of the budget documents submitted for fiscal year 2008 did 

not adhere to that standard. Further, the department is directed to 

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

current year, and budget year for all programs, activities, initiatives, and program elements. Each budget submitted by the department must also include detailed justification for the incremental 

funding increases and additional FTEs being requested above the 

enacted level, by program, activity, or program element. 

OST currently includes a helpful discussion in its justification of 

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

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

format which identifies specific changes in funding from the current year to the budget year for each office, including each office 

within the office of the secretary. 

Operating plan.—The Committee directs the department to submit an operating plan for fiscal year 2008, signed by the secretary 

for review by the Committees on Appropriations of both the House 

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

plan should include funding levels for the various offices, programs 

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

or referenced in the House and Senate appropriations reports, and 

the statement of the managers. 

Department of defense schools.—The Committee understands that 

there may be differing views within the Department regarding payments to the Department of Defense for the education of dependent 

children of those Federal Aviation Administration employees in 

Puerto Rico and Guam if they meet the eligibility requirements of 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
13 

Section 2164(c) of title 10, United States Code. The Committee encourages the Secretary as chief executive of the Department to 

render a final decision regarding these payments that is consistent 

with the law and is in the best interest of the affected children. 

General provisions.—The Committee reiterates its direction to 

the Department to provide a detailed explanation for each and 

every general provision requested in the budget. The Committee 

expects each of the modal administrations to provide a similar justification for each requested general provision. 

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

salaries and expenses. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $8,528,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 9,140,900 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,140,900 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +612,900 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the secretary 

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

for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in 

federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. 

This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department 

of Transportation employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $9,140,900 for the office of civil rights, 

which represents a $612,900 increase above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $14,893,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 9,115,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,515,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥6,378,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥600,000 

This appropriation finances those research activities and studies 

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

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

educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,515,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, a decrease of 

$6,378,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $600,000 

below the budget request. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
14 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following 

projects: 

Advanced freight locomotive safety and monitoring system, MA .. $1,000,000 

Ballast water research, UW–Superior, WI ....................................... 1,000,000 

Center for commercial deployment of transportation technologies, 

CA .................................................................................................... 250,000 

Commercial vehicle rollover prevention technology demonstration, MI ............................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Great lakes maritime research institute, WI ................................... 1,000,000 

National center for manufacturing sciences (NCMS), MI ............... 750,000 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Limitation, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................... ($118,014,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 1 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (128,094,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................ (+10,080,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ (+128,094,000) 1Proposed without limitation. 

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

administrative services to the various modes and outside entities 

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

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

the WCF’s capabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on the 

working capital fund. The budget request proposed a limitless program level for the fund in fiscal year 2008. The Committee’s recommendation is appropriate considering the funding levels of the 

operations and administrative accounts. 

Modal usage of working capital fund.—Consistent with past 

practice, the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 

2009 congressional justifications for each of the modal administrations, to account for increases or decreases in WCF billings based 

on planned usage requested or anticipated by the modes rather 

than anticipated by WCF managers. 

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on 

guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................................................... $893,000 ($18,367,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ........................................................................................... 891,000 (18,367,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................................................ 893,000 (18,367,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ...................................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .................................................................................. +2,000 (– – –) 

The minority business resource center of the office of small and 

disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining 

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

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


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
15 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $893,000 for the minority business 

resourse center which is the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $2,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides 

$370,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans and $523,000 for 

the program’s administrative expenses. In addition, the Committee 

recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000, the 

same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $2,970,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 2,970,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

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

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

serves DOT-wide goals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

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

both the fiscal year 2007 funding level and the budget request. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $59,400,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 60,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +60,000,000 

The Essential Air Service (EAS) program was originally created 

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

continue air service to communities that had received federally 

mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently 

provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that 

meet certain criteria. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently 

appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and 

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

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

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

funds available to the agency. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget proposes to fund the EAS program at a total of $50,000,000, solely from new overflight fee collections 

credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and changes the 

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

addition, the budget proposes bill language which would result in 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
16 

the elimination of air service to nearly a third of the communities 

that currently receive service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total program level of EAS in fiscal year 2008 of $110,000,000, the same level provided in fiscal 

year 2007. This funding consists of an appropriation of $60,000,000 

and $50,000,000 to be derived from overflight fee collections. Based 

on current estimates from the Department of Transportation, the 

Committee believes that this funding level is sufficient to maintain 

air service to all communities currently served by the Essential Air 

Service program. However, in the event that there is a shortfall, 

the bill continues language allowing the Secretary to transfer up to 

$10,000,000 to the EAS program from the small community air 

service development program if necessary. 

The bill does not include the legislative reforms to the essential 

air service program as proposed in the budget. However, the Committee continues language (sec. 101) to ensure prompt availability 

of funds for obligation to air carriers providing service under the 

EAS program. The Committee has also continued language that allows the secretary to take into consideration the subsidy requirements of carriers when selecting between carriers competing to provide service to a community. 

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

funds to implement an essential air service pilot program that requires local cost-share participation. 

COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................... ¥$50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥22,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................ +28,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act 

(Public Law 107–42) provided $5,000,000,000 to compensate air 

carriers for direct losses incurred during the federal ground stop of 

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

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

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

and a total of $375,000,000 has been rescinded by Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes language that rescinds the remaining 

$22,000,000 from the compensation for air carriers, consistent with 

the budget request. The Committee understands that there is one 

remaining claim that is currently in administrative processing. Although the Committee has been informed that this claim is expected to be resolved in 2007, the Committee requests that the Secretary keep the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

informed as to the status of this final claim. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
17 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF

TRANSPORTATION

Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

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

outreach’’. 

Section 102. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

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

Section 103. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

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

share participation program. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

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

in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 

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

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

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

development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates 

for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil 

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

Civil Aeronautics Authority. 

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

agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 

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

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

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

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

Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, 

and decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation 

security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

Aviation trends and challenges.—The aviation industry has 

emerged as one of the largest industries in the world, as air travel 

has facilitated economic growth, world trade, international investment and tourism. Both commercial aviation and cargo service 

have experienced significant growth. In the ten year period from 

1995 to 2006, the number of passengers grew from 545 million per 

year to 740 million. This number is expected to grow to 1 billion 

passengers by 2015. In addition, the air freight industry has expanded from 23 billion tons in 1995 to 40 billion tons in 2006, a 

74 percent boost in total goods transported due in part to the large 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
18 

rise in express delivery services. In 2002, the value of the goods 

transported via commercial aviation surpassed $8,483 billion testifying to the industry’s value to international and domestic business. Based on the demands of a growing, global economy which relies on quality goods delivered on a ‘‘just-in-time’’ basis, the tonnage and value of goods transported via aviation means are expected to increase. 

However, the aviation industry is continuing to change and FAA 

is facing some serious challenges. The increase in traffic levels has 

resulted in congestion and delays. Operational performance of the 

National Airspace System (NAS) slipped slightly in 2006 with one 

in four flights arriving late. This is the worst level since 2000 when 

aviation gridlock dominated the aviation agenda. The Committee 

notes that the average length of flight delays has increased from 

51 minutes in 2000 to 53 minutes in 2006. Increased travel has 

also produced more emissions and noise problems. While technological advances in aircraft design have resulted in quieter planes 

with lower emissions, civilian aviation reportedly contributes approximately 3.5 percent of the total emissions that negatively impact air quality. Advances in equipment and capital programs are 

expected to reduce congestion and emissions but more work in 

these areas is necessary to cope with the increasing demand for 

aviation transportation. 

Although no legacy airlines are currently in bankruptcy, they 

continue to struggle financially. Over the last several years, they 

have received intense competition from an increasing number of 

low-cost carriers. The declining airfares that benefit consumers 

have contributed to the financial difficulties of network carriers. 

High fuel costs continue to undermine the financial improvement 

of network carriers and are also cutting into the low-cost carriers’ 

bottom lines. 

In addition, the nation’s fleet mix now runs the gamut from very 

light jets to the A–380, which completed its first flights to the U.S. 

this year. The complexity in the system is increasing—the smaller 

more efficient jets are flying point-to-point rather than through expensive network hub airports. These changes have resulted in 

workload increases for FAA. 

These workload increases are occurring just when the FAA is facing a large wave of controller retirements. FAA has seen an increase in retirements over projections in 2006 linked to its imposed 

work rules, and it must ensure that enough controllers are hired 

and trained to replace those that are retiring. In addition, the 

workload on safety inspectors and engineers is increasing as the industry continues to outsource and as the FAA transitions to the 

safety management system (SMS). 

Since the current air traffic system, which is largely groundbased infrastructure, is not sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for air travel or to address the changes in the industry, FAA 

is undertaking the development and implementation of the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The Committee 

notes that FAA has had a history of problems managing modernization projects in the past. NextGen is a complex, multibillion 

modernization project, and FAA must establish effective controls 

and oversight to ensure the FAA delivers new capabilities on-time 

and within budget. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
19 

If our aviation system does not proactively respond to these challenges, there will be severe economic and social consequences. If we 

fail to capitalize on the opportunities to improve the industry then 

congestion, higher consumer prices, deteriorating air quality and 

an increased risk to aviation safety are all foreseeable repercussions. The Committee strongly urges the FAA to aggressively pursue solutions to these problems to ensure that the United States 

remains at the forefront of aviation safety and efficiency. 

FAA funding proposal.—The Federal Aviation Administration’s 

funding and programs expire in October of this year. In its reauthorization proposal submitted on February 14, the FAA transforms the aviation financing structure from tax-based to cost-based. 

As the foundation of its proposal, the FAA would impose new userfees and issue bonds to finance air traffic control modernization. 

Bondholders would be repaid with these user fees. 

The Committee continues to have serious concerns about the impact of user fees and bonding on the oversight of FAA programs. 

In the past, the agency’s large capital projects experienced massive 

cost growth and schedule slippage. A May 2005 IG report stated 

that 11 major FAA acquisitions experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion and delays from 2 to 12 years. Although some progress has 

been made, more needs to be done. This Committee has ensured 

that the FAA strengthens its program management and contractor 

oversight. 

However, user fees and bonding would create a new fiduciary responsibility between the agency and the bondholder. Essentially, 

FAA’s allegiance would transfer from the American taxpayer to the 

bondholder, and oversight responsibilities of this Committee also 

would be substituted by bondholders. Financial discipline would 

erode as these programs would exist outside of the budget process. 

The Committee firmly believes that now is not the time to decrease its oversight role, especially as FAA is developing and soon 

will implement NextGen, a multi-billion effort that will dominate 

FAA’s F&E account. The Committee’s oversight of FAA’s capital 

programs is and will be vitally important to protect tax dollars and 

to ensure projects are completed on-time and within budget. 

FAA program structure.—In its fiscal year 2008 budget request, 

the FAA proposed to change FAA’s program account structure. The 

request would create two new accounts, Air Traffic Organization 

and Safety and Operations, which would be composed of a mix of 

elements from two eliminated accounts, Operations and Facilities 

and Equipment. The FAA states that this structure would align 

FAA’s lines of businesses with its reauthorization proposal, which 

includes user fees in fiscal year 2009. 

The Committee notes that FAA’s proposed new accounts are not 

authorized, and the Senate’s Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 does not adopt the proposal. Therefore, the Committee continues funding FAA under the existing account structure. 

In addition, the Committee presents all charts and figures in this 

format. 

Justification of general provisions.—The Committee notes that 

FAA has not provided any justification for, nor has it addressed, 

the general or administrative provisions it proposes in the President’s budget. The Committee directs FAA to justify each provision 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
20 

proposed in a section of each subsequent fiscal year’s congressional 

budget justification. 

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $8,374,217,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 1 ..................................................... 8,725,783,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,716,606,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +342,389,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥9,177,000 1 Reflects requested funding in existing account structure. 

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

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

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 

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

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

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,716,606,000 for FAA operations, 

an increase of $342,389,000 above the level provided in fiscal year 

2007, and $9,177,000 below the budget request. 

A comparison of the fiscal year 2008 budget request to the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: 

Budget activity Fiscal year 2007 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2008 

request 1

Committee recommended 

Air traffic organization ............................................................. $6,739,761,000 $6,964,813,000 $6,958,413,000 

Aviation safety .......................................................................... 1,003,410,000 1,056,103,000 1,076,103,000 

Commercial space transportation ............................................ 11,696,000 12,837,000 12,549,000 

Financial services ..................................................................... 76,289,000 103,849,000 100,593,000 

Human resources ...................................................................... 85,738,000 91,214,000 89,101,000 

Region and center operations .................................................. 275,797,000 290,872,000 286,848,000 

Staff offices .............................................................................. 175,000,000 166,543,000 162,349,000 

Information services ................................................................. 36,002,000 39,552,000 38,650,000 

Adjustments .............................................................................. .............................. .............................. ¥8,000,000 

Total ................................................................................. 8,374,217,000 8,725,783,000 8,716,606,000

1 Reflects requested funding in existing account structure. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $12,572,000,000 of the total appropriation from 

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

($2,399,606,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, 85 percent of the FAA’s costs will be 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
21 

borne by air travelers and industries using those services. The remaining 15 percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize FAA services. 

STATE OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

According to Administration estimates, fiscal year 2008 will continue the recent trend where necessary outlays for FAA programs 

outstrip the revenues from aviation users deposited into the airport 

and airway trust fund. The following table compares trust fund 

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

table indicates, under current estimates the Federal Government is 

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

is going beyond that, and spending down the cash balance. The Administration estimates that, at the end of fiscal year 2008, the uncommitted cash balance in the trust fund will be approximately 

$3,134,000,000. 

Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 

Trust fund revenue 1 ................................................................. $11,194,000,000 $12,131,000,000 $12,623,000,000 

Trust fund outlays .................................................................... 12,148,000,000 12,308,000,000 14,154,000,000 

Difference .................................................................................. ¥954,000,000 ¥177,000,000 ¥1,531,000,000 

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

BASE TRANSFERS

The budget proposes to transfer several activities and related 

personnel among offices within the operations appropriation. The 

Committee agrees that these transfers will properly align functions 

and positions among these offices, resulting in efficiencies. 

AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION

The bill provides $6,958,413,000 for air traffic services, a reduction of $6,400,000 from the budget request. These resources are 

managed by FAA’s air traffic organization. The recommended level 

reflects a $211,452,000 increase from the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level, primarily due to mandatory adjustments for pay raises and 

inflation for on-board personnel, including air traffic controllers; 

costs associated with hiring and training 1,420 new air traffic controllers; and national airspace system (NAS) hand-off costs. NAS 

hand-off costs are associated with additional training for maintenance, engineering, telecommunications and other personnel on facilities and equipment acquisitions as they become operational. 

Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and 

described below: 

Amount 

Contract tower base program ............................................................... +$3,600,000 

NAS handoff ........................................................................................... ¥10,000,000 

Contract tower program.—The bill includes $103,000,000, an increase of $3,600,000 above the budget estimate of $99,400,000, to 

continue the contract tower base program. This will fund the 10 

non-towered airports that are expected to enter the program during 

fiscal year 2008. 

In addition, the bill provides $8,500,000, equal to the budget estimate, to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
22 

Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program that provides safety benefits to small communities. 

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

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

unsubscribed funds from the contract tower base-line program to 

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

National airspace system handoff.—The Committee recommends 

a reduction of $10,000,000 below the budget estimate of 

$127,873,000 for a total of $117,400,000 in NAS handoff funding to 

training on newly deployed F&E systems. 

Controller staffing.—The Committee believes that the FAA’s 

leadership should proactively work to reach a mutual agreement 

with its controller workforce. The Committee is extremely concerned about controller staffing levels both on-board and in the 

training and hiring ‘‘pipeline’’, as controllers are crucial to the safety of the flying public. The FAA estimates that over the next 10 

years, 72 percent of its controllers will become eligible to retire as 

they reach the mandatory retirement age of 56. To address the retirement bubble, FAA states that it plans to hire and train 15,000 

new air traffic controllers over that time-frame. In December 2004, 

it submitted to Congress its first air traffic controller workforce 

plan outlining its hiring plan for the next 10 years. 

In March 2007, the agency provided the second update to its air 

traffic controller workforce plan. As with the prior update, it refined the methodology, incorporated new estimates of future traffic 

and retirement projections, and included recent productivity gains. 

In addition, it includes facility-specific controller staffing ranges, 

consistent with the Inspector General’s recommendation, which the 

FAA states is based on actual and forecasted traffic demands. Although the Committee agrees that facility-specific levels are important to ensure an adequate number of controllers are in each facility, it is concerned that the lower level of the staffing ranges represent a significant reduction in some facilities as compared to facility staffing agreements reached with the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association in 1998. 

In addition, the Committee is concerned that retirements have 

increased over projections. It is clear that the sudden escalation in 

retirements is directly related to the collapse of labor negotiations 

in May 2006. The FAA projected 467 retirements for fiscal year 

2006, and actual retirements were tracking close to projections 

until May when the FAA declared an impasse. By the end of the 

fiscal year, a total of 116 additional air traffic controllers retired 

over projections. FAA responded by increasing new hires in fiscal 

year 2007 (by 250) and raising retirement projections for the future 

(by 57 in 2007). FAA states that it is primarily focused on reaching 

its end of year staffing target each year and adjusts new hiring 

goals to meet end of year targets. 

However, the increased retirements translate into a less experienced workforce. This less experienced workforce is responsible for 

providing on-the-job training for the new Academy graduates. This 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
23 

coupled with the recent reduction in training time from 3–5 years 

to 2–3 years, could result in negative safety implications. 

Consistent with the fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Committee includes $15,899,000 to support salaries, benefits, training 

and ancillary support costs associated with 1,420 new controllers. 

The agency estimates that the new hires will be offset by expected 

losses of 1,276 controllers, resulting in a net increase of 144. The 

Committee will continue to closely monitor the various aspects of 

the controller issue, including retirements and training, to ensure 

that there are enough trained controllers to replace those that are 

retiring. Further, the Committee will continue to monitor the safety of the system by reviewing data, including runway incursion and 

operational error statistics. 

Controller diversity plan.—The Committee notes that the current 

controller workforce does not reflect the rich diversity of this nation. Given that 72 percent of the more than 14,000 controllers will 

retire over the next 10 years, now is the opportune time for FAA 

to reach-out to minorities and females to expand their numbers in 

the controller ranks. 

The Committee directs the FAA to develop a plan that will attract a controller workforce that more closely resembles this nation. 

The plan should include new methods to increase lower than anticipated participation rates and include a current controller workforce 

baseline with metrics to measure the plan’s effectiveness. The Committee requires the FAA to provide the controller diversity plan to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 

1, 2008, and to provide updates to the Committee annually thereafter on new activities undertaken on the plan’s effectiveness. 

Automated external defibrillators.—The Committee believes that 

automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can serve as a critical lifesaving device for FAA employees that experience cardiac arrest. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to study the issue of installing AEDs in its facilities and encourages the FAA to develop 

a policy on AEDs. The study should include the cost of an AED; 

other costs, such as installation, training, and maintenance; a review of OSHA and any other applicable guidelines or requirements; 

a review of liability risks; an accounting of FAA facilities that currently have defibrillators; and a review of other federal agencies’ 

policies on providing AEDs. The Committee directs FAA to provide 

the study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation 

within 60 days of enactment of this Act. 

Flight service stations.—The Committee is troubled by the technical and operational problems associated with the flight service 

station consolidation and modernization. These problems include 

system outages, lost flight plans, excessive hold times, dropped 

calls, and poor quality service with specialists incapable of briefing 

on important weather and safety information. The Committee remains concerned the operational needs of the users are not being 

met thus affecting safety. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

FAA to develop and implement management controls to ensure 

that the contractor has sufficient specialists certified in a particular service area to meet user need, consistent with the recommendation included in the Inspector General’s May 2007 report. 

The FAA shall report to the House and Senate Committees on ApVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.001 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
24 

propriations, no later than December 31, 2007, on the status of 

these controls. 

AVIATION SAFETY

The bill provides $1,076,103,000 for aviation safety, an increase 

of $20,000,000 above the budget request. Recommended adjustments to the budget are described below. 

Annualize on-board safety inspectors and engineers .......................... +$16,000,000 

Hire additional critical safety staff ...................................................... +4,000,000 

Critical safety staff.—The Committee has been concerned for 

some time about the level of critical safety personnel. To address 

delinquencies in the office of flight standard and aircraft certification, the 2006 Act provided an additional $12,000,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 budget request for 238 new safety personnel, of 

which $8,000,000 was for aviation flight standards (AFS) inspectors, and $4,000,000 for aircraft certification safety inspectors, engineers, pilots, and scientists. After accounting for the fiscal year 

2006 across the board cut and mandatory pay raise, only 87 new 

safety staff, 55 for AFS and 32 for AIR, could be hired. The Committee took care to ensure that the entire 238 positions originally 

envisioned could be hired in fiscal year 2007, and provided funding 

for 43 AFS positions and 14 AIR positions in House Joint Resolution 20. 

Although the fiscal year 2008 budget request provides increases 

to several critical safety staff offices, including 84 in AFS and 28 

in AIR, it does not include the necessary funding to annualize the 

57 AIR and AFS staff hired in fiscal year 2007. Therefore the committee provides $16,000,000 for these purposes, in addition to the 

requested funding level. 

Further, the Committee provides another $4,000,000 to hire critical safety staff. The Committee expects that these funds will allow 

FAA to hire up to 60 AVS personnel. Within this $4,000,000, the 

Committee provides $2,000,000 for AVS inspectors, $750,000 for 

AIR, $250,000 for aviation medicine, $750,000 for Air Traffic Safety 

Oversight, and $250,000 for quantity, integration, and executive 

services. 

Funds provided for the AVS offices are designated congressional 

items of interest. The Committee prohibits the reprogramming of 

funds between the offices, or for any other purpose within or outside of the aviation safety office, including the hiring of other types 

of personnel within aviation safety. 

The Committee directs the Secretary to provide annual reports 

beginning March 1, 2008 regarding the use of the funds provided, 

including, but not limited to the total full-time equivalent staff 

years in the offices of aircraft certification and flight standards, 

total employees, vacancies, and positions under active recruitment 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

AVS safety workforce plan.—The FAA delivered its first aviation 

safety workforce plan to Congress on May 10, 2007. The purpose 

of the plan was to ensure that the FAA sustains sufficient oversight of a dynamic and growing industry given its highly-trained 

and technically-skilled workforce with a historic and expected annual attrition rate of 5 to 7 percent. The plan assumes an overall 

staffing growth of .05 to 2 percent per year over attrition in AVS 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
25 

overall. It also addresses the need to attract the right mix of new 

skills as FAA transitions the current AVS workforce to a safety 

management system culture. However, the plan does not indicate 

the number of inspectors required to meet its mission, nor does it 

provide information on additional training needs for on-board staff. 

To accomplish the former, the FAA must produce a staffing model, 

and the Committee understands the FAA currently is working with 

the National Academy of Sciences to develop such model. 

In addition the report states FAA will expand the use of designees. The Committee notes that the IG has had serious safety 

concerns associated with the use of designees. The Committee 

shares the IG’s concerns regarding any expansion of the use of designees for critical safety oversight activities. The Committee directs 

FAA to provide more detail on overall staffing needs, its expected 

use of designees and how that will impact safety, as well as staffing requirements at its office and field locations. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to submit updates to this plan annually. 

AVS diversity.—The Committee is interested in attracting a diverse safety workforce to ensure that the AVS workforce more 

closely resembles this Nation. Therefore, the Committee directs the 

FAA to submit the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation 

an AVS diversity plan. The plan should include new methods to increase lower than anticipated participation rates and include a current AVS workforce baseline with metrics to measure the plan’s effectiveness. The Committee requires the FAA to provide the AVS 

diversity plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation by January 1, 2008, and to provide updates to the Committee 

annually thereafter on new activities undertaken and on the plan’s 

effectiveness. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction ....................................................... ¥$288,000 

The Committee recommends $12,549,000 for the office of commercial space transportation, a reduction of $288,000 from the 

budget request for funding requests associated with fiscal year 

2007. This funding level assumes four new FTEs for space launch 

safety. The commercial space launch industry is expanding to include the transportation of humans as well as satellites and other 

payloads into space and the use of inland as well as coastal launch 

sites. As a result, FAA’s workload and safety oversight responsibilities will continue to grow. GAO noted in its October 2006 report 

that the FAA needs sufficient expertise to continue to provide timely license approvals and monitoring and to address the serious 

safety implications of the industry’s expansion for people both on 

the ground and in the launch vehicles. 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction ....................................................... ¥$1,256,000 

Delphi reduction .................................................................................... ¥2,000,000 

The Committee recommends $100,593,000 for the office of financial services, a reduction of $3,256,000 from the budget request. 

The Committee provides $14,483,000 for Delphi maintenance and 

operation costs, FAA’s portion of the complex, department-wide, financial management system. In addition, the Committee provides 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
26 

a total of $984,000 to support 5 new positions for expanded contract oversight for the program. The Committee reduces funding by 

$1,256,000 for funds requested associated with the fiscal year 2007 

request. Within the funds provided, the Committee provides 8 

FTEs to establish new functions and controls to address the material weakness and qualified opinion it received on its fiscal year 

2006 financial statements and other problems identified in prior 

years. This will allow the FAA to effectively manage the capitalization of assets (representing a $14 billion portfolio) identified by 

both the IG and the GAO as a longstanding problem. The funding 

level also includes $7,000,000 in base transfers associated with 

penalty mail. 

HUMAN RESOURCES

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction ....................................................... ¥$2,113,000 

The Committee recommends $89,101,000, a reduction of 

$2,113,000 from the budget request for funding associated with the 

fiscal year 2007 request. 

REGION AND CENTER OPERATIONS

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction ....................................................... ¥$4,024,000 

The Committee recommends $286,848,000 for the region and cen- ter operations, a reduction of $4,024,000 from the request. Increases from fiscal year 2007 include increases associated with facilities management, and $7,827,000 associated with the Washington flight program hanger 6 base transfer from ATO. 

STAFF OFFICES

Fiscal year 2007 related reduction ....................................................... ¥$5,049,000 

The Committee provides $200,999,000 for staff offices, including 

information service, a reduction of $5,049,000 below the budget request. The reduction is associated with funding requested for fiscal 

year 2007. Within the total, information services is provided 

$38,650,000. 

ACCOUNT-WIDE ADJUSTMENTS

Unfilled executive positions.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $8,000,000 in agency-wide personnel compensation and 

benefits reflecting the unfilled roster of 15 executive positions in 

the agency, including 6 which were not under active recruitment. 

Past hearing records indicate that, at any given time, the agency 

is likely to have between 10 and 20 unfilled executive positions. For 

an agency with 159 executive positions, this level of openings may 

not be problematic. However, it does indicate excess costs are being 

budgeted for positions that are not likely to be filled in the entirety 

of the fiscal year. 

BILL LANGUAGE

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

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

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

request. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
27 

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

worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay 

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

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

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

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

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

the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General 

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

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

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

scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and 

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

operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2007. 

Aviation user fees.—The bill includes a limitation carried for several years prohibiting funds from being used to finalize or implement any new unauthorized user fees. 

Aeronautical charting and cartography.—The bill maintains the 

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

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

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

The Committee believes this work should continue to be conducted 

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

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

funds to purchase store gift cards or gift certificates through a government-issued credit card. This provision responds to abuses documented by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Credits.—Funds received from specified public, private, and foreign sources for expenses incurred may be credited to the appropriation. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $2,516,920,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 1 ..................................................... 2,462,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,515,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥1,920,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +53,000,000 1 Reflects requested funding in existing account structure. 

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

means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway 

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

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the 

safety and capacity of the airspace system. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
28 

Next generation air transportation system (NextGen).—The Committee is fully supportive of development and transition to 

NextGen and agrees that it is critical to accommodate the projected 

increases in air travel and air freight. In 2006 there were 740 passengers and the FAA forecasts that airlines will carry more than 

1 billion passengers by 2015. DOT predicts a tripling of passengers, 

cargo, and operations by 2025. 

Congress established the joint planning and development office 

(JPDO) to manage work related to the NextGen, which will be a 

highly complex, expensive, high-risk endeavor. The FAA estimates 

that $4,600,000,000 will be required for the NextGen initiative over 

the next five years, and much more is required in the out-years. 

In its February 2007 report, the IG identified a number of actions 

that are needed to reduce risk with NextGen. 

The report stressed that FAA needs to keep its major acquisitions on track. A May 2005 IG report stated that 11 major FAA acquisitions experienced cost growth of $5.6 billion and experienced 

schedule slips from 2 to 12 years. Although FAA has made some 

progress, it needs to continue strong oversight of these programs, 

particularly since many serve as platforms for NextGen. 

In addition, the JPDO must ensure that it is a multi-agency effort. It must coordinate diverse agency research efforts underway 

at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and Department of 

Homeland Security. The JPDO continues to develop an enterprise 

architecture and an integrated budget document, and has been 

working on memorandum of understandings with participating 

agencies. However, questions remain over which entities will fund 

and conduct some of the necessary research and development 

(R&D) projects. The IG recommends that the JPDO develop an 

R&D plan to guide agency research efforts over the next several 

years. 

In addition, the IG recommends that FAA shift from NextGen 

planning to implementation. FAA needs to develop realistic cost estimates for development, including adjustments to existing project 

and costs for new initiatives; quantify expected benefits; develop a 

strategy for technology transfer; and conduct sufficient human factors research to support NextGen changes. 

The Committee directs FAA to continue working to mitigate the 

risks involved in the development of NextGen to ensure that the 

NAS can meet expected traffic demands safely and efficiently. Further, FAA shall keep the Committee fully appraised of any circumstance which may impact the cost or schedule of the NextGen 

deployment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,515,000,000 

for this program, a decrease of $1,920,000 below the level provided 

for fiscal year 2007 and $53,000,000 above the budget estimate. 

The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, 

$2,055,027,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2010, 

and $459,973,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) 

is available until September 30, 2008. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
29 

Program increases for critical safety programs.—The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included the ‘‘reduction of 

runway incursions’’ as one of its top priorities. In fact, the issue 

has been on NTSB’s ‘‘most wanted transportation improvement’’ 

list since the list began in 1990. Although the FAA has made significant progress in reducing these incidents, the risks remain serious. Therefore, the Committee continues to target funding at specific technologies that will help prevent runway incursions now and 

in the future as well as other safety programs. 

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

Runway Incursion Reduction Programs (RIRP).—The Committee 

provides $8,000,000 for the RIRP, an increase of $2,000,000 over 

the budget request to accelerate the development of safety technologies that mitigate factors and reduce the likelihood of runway 

incursions. This funding level will accelerate development and testing of runway intersection lights logic for intersecting runways; development of audible runway conflict alerts to the cockpit, especially important in low visibility conditions; and development of 

ground-based runway safety alerting visual aids for small and medium airports where ASDE–X technology is not available. 

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

ADSB program is an important foundation for the next generation 

air traffic control system. It provides an advanced surveillance 

technology which will result in greater positional accuracy and better utilization of airspace. In addition, it will reduce congestion, increase capacity, increase safety and provide greater predictability 

in departure and arrival times. 

The Committee provides $90,650,000, $5,000,000 above the request of $85,650,000 to accelerate ADSB. With the additional 

funds, the Committee directs the FAA to examine frequency congestion issues associated with the ADSB signal (expected to be 

used by large commercial aircraft) and accelerate the effort to determine how existing aircraft separation standards (based on radar 

technology) can be safely reduced. Resolution of these issues is essential for realizing the full benefits of this promising technology. 

MODERNIZATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND

EQUIPMENT

Advanced technology and oceanic procedures (ATOP).—The Committee understands that ATOP service problems are resulting in 

the loss of data-link communication with aircraft and aircraft position jumps. Not only does this pose a serious safety issue, but also 

these problems directly limit the potential capacity and productivity benefits from the new automation system. Further, the Committee is concerned that ATOP cannot serve as a platform for 

NextGen if the service is not corrected. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the FAA to implement a solution that corrects the problems. 

ENROUTE PROGRAMS

Airport surface detection system—model X (ASDE–X).—The Committee provides $45,600,000 for ASDE–X, for an increase of 

$7,700,000 over the budget request. The additional funds will enable FAA to expedite site implementation and commission ASDE– 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
30 

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

awareness in all weather conditions and reduced risk of category 

A and B runway incursions. 

Runway status lights.—The Committee provides $20,000,000 for runway status lights (RWSL), an increase of $14,700,000 over the 

budget request. Implementation of RWSL will reduce the likelihood 

of runway accidents, particularly during take-off and landing, when 

most accidents take place. This program will help establish an 

international standard for this type of safety technology and help 

maintain FAA’s international leadership. Further, this program responds to continued calls from both the operational community and 

the NTSB to deploy technology that provides direct warning to pilots. 

Integrated control and monitoring system.—The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the continued procurement and installation, including site preparation, of the integrated control and monitoring system (ICMS) and expects the DOT to install systems at 

airports with the highest need. 

TERMINAL PROGRAMS

Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.—The Committee provides a total of $155,100,000 for this program, an increase of $4,500,000 over the budget request. 

Project FY 2008 budget 

estimate 

Recommendation 

Abilene, TX ................................................................................................................... $2,200,000 $2,200,000 

Palm Springs, CA ........................................................................................................ 500,000 1,500,000 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Oakland, CA ................................................................................................................. 4,600,000 4,600,000 

Orlando, FL .................................................................................................................. 7,000,000 7,000,000 

Toledo, OH .................................................................................................................... 1,450,000 1,450,000 

Traverse City, MI .......................................................................................................... 1,150,000 1,150,000 

Kalamozoo, MI .............................................................................................................. 22,550,000 22,550,000 

West Palm Beach, FL .................................................................................................. 7,590,000 7,590,000 

Houston, TX .................................................................................................................. 29,072,000 29,072,000 

Boise, ID ...................................................................................................................... 9,074,000 9,074,000 

Jeffco, CO ..................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Reno, NV ...................................................................................................................... 15,223,000 15,223,000 

Gulfport, MS ................................................................................................................. 7,497,000 7,497,000 

LaGuardia, NY .............................................................................................................. 9,000,000 9,000,000 

Pensacola, FL ............................................................................................................... 4,180,000 4,180,000 

Dayton, OH ................................................................................................................... 2,300,000 2,300,000 

Memphis, TN ................................................................................................................ 4,760,000 4,760,000 

Missoula, MT ................................................................................................................ 754,000 754,000 

Medford, OR ................................................................................................................. 1,100,000 1,100,000 

San Francisco, CA, replacement ................................................................................. – – – 1,500,000 

Facility power distribution links.—The Committee understands 

that a significant number of facilities require upgraded power distribution links. The current electronic configurations have caused 

power outages and resulted in significant flight delays. The Committee directs that the FAA establish a national program to update 

the power distribution systems at up to 25 facilities with problems, 

including the establishment of cost and schedule baselines and adjustment in its capital investment plan to ensure the expeditious 

solution to this problem. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
31 

LANDING AND NAVIGATION AIDS

Instrument landing system establishment.—Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the following distribution: 

Completion of ILS at Northeastern Regional Airport, Edenton, 

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

Completion of ILS at Somerset Airport, Somerset, Kentucky ........ 400,000 

Completion of ILS at Saline County Airport, Arkansas .................. 400,000 

Continue ILS at Aiken Municipal Airport, South Carolina ............ 300,000 

ILS Independence Municipal Airport, Kansas, (meets cost-benefit 

test) .................................................................................................. 700,000 

Approach lighting system improvement programs.—Within the 

funds provided, the Committee directs the following distribution: 

Continuation of MALSR at Rutland State Airport, Vermont ......... $700,000 

Continuation of runway and centerline lighting, Gulfport-Biloxi 

Airport, Mississippi ......................................................................... 500,000 

FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS

Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) and GPS approaches.— 

The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget request of 

$115,900,000 for the wide area augmentation system includes 

$4,100,000 for the development of additional approaches and flight 

procedures at the nation’s non-part 139 certified airports. The Committee supports this effort, and has provided $120,900,000 for 

WAAS, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request. Additional funds are provided to publish WAAS approaches at airports 

at non-Part 139 airports without an existing ILS approach. 

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

C program in the President’s budget because it believes this system 

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

Committee understands that a decision to terminate Loran C is dependent upon agreement by DOT, which has not occurred. The 

Committee also understands that in late 2006, DOT convened an 

independent assessment team, in cooperation with DHS, to complete yet another evaluation of Loran C. The team concluded that 

Loran C should be retained and modernized to serve as a long-term 

back-up for GPS. The Committee assumes continuation of Loran C 

in fiscal year 2008. 

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

FAA has not, despite the tremendous attention, prodding, and 

funding from this Committee, completed contract negotiations for 

the display upgrades at the Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, and St. 

Louis sites. Since these sites are large and critical to the national 

airspace system, these aging controller displays have particular 

safety implications. In fact, the IG identified these four sites as 

critical in November 2004, due to their significant reliability problems, insufficient computer memory, and insufficient data processing capability. 

In the fiscal year 2006 Act, the Committee noted its concern regarding FAA’s estimated timeline to award the contract to update 

the displays and complete the project. However, the Committee was 

encouraged when the two viable contractors came together in January 2006 with a single proposal for all sites. The promise and expectation was that the alliance would allow these facilities to be 

updated up to 10 months earlier and at a cheaper price. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
32 

However, the project has been plagued by delays apparently associated with intracontractual issues between the contractors as 

well as with FAA’s technical solution which assumed minimal software changes. In order to motivate the contractors to reach a cost 

agreement, the FAA was forced to limit funding provided under the 

‘‘not to exceed’’ contract. 

On May 31, the parties reached a cost agreement. A definitized 

contract is expected to be executed by June 30, and project completion is slated for July 2008. Clearly, the Committee is disappointed 

that any savings in time and money associated with the project has 

evaporated and remains concerned that critical upgrades to large 

sites with a history of failures will not be complete for over a year. 

MISSION SUPPORT

Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).— The Committee provides $81,000,000 for CAASD, an increase of 

$6,800,000 above the budget estimate, and equal to the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level. This funding level will continue CAASD’s valuable contributions to many of FAA’s programs, but particularly the 

critical input to NextGen and runway safety programs. 

CAASD’s ability to simulate NextGen capabilities is vital to 

FAA’s success now and in the future. This increase will fund simulation and evaluations of future concepts that are part of NextGen 

and the evolution to NextGen (including changes in roles and responsibilities for controllers, pilots and both aircraft and ground 

system automation; new concepts in airspace management; and use 

of procedures based on required navigation performance). It will 

allow CAASD to develop requirements and perform alternatives 

analysis for the operational and system architecture evolution of 

the NAS toward NextGen. 

Further, regarding runway safety programs, this funding level 

will allow CAASD to conduct simulation of runway incursion encounters similar to the 2005 Boston Logan near miss and 2006 Chicago O’Hare near miss and prepare evaluation plans for experimental deployment at a selected major airport. It will fund humanin-the-loop simulations for design and evaluation of a runway incursion warning system that resides in each aircraft and is not dependent on airport ground infrastructure. A flight-deck-based system would be applicable to a large number of mid-sized and smaller airports that don’t have expensive surface surveillance systems. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $459,973,000 for personnel and related expenses. This appropriation finances the installation and 

commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities. 

Collaboration with collective bargaining units.—The Committee 

notes that participation by FAA’s users and servicers and their respective collective bargaining unit organizations is vitally important to ensure the best capital products and solutions for both the 

FAA and the flying public. History has shown the early and continuous inclusion of subject matter experts can prevent seemingly subtle problems that could have challenging and expensive consequences. This lesson was very clear in the middle 1990s during 

the development of the standard terminal automation replacement 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
33 

system (STARS). The FAA severely limited controller input, which 

resulted in significant cost overruns and schedule delays. These relationships are critical, particularly as the FAA plans and develop 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). 

The Committee understands that the FAA’s imposed work rules 

have caused confusion about collective bargaining unit participation in capital program development. In a May 23 letter to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), FAA clarified 

that the relationship would continue. The FAA states that the imposed work rules define a process for establishing workgroups for 

technology and procedural changes, and that NATCA can submit a 

list of individuals to FAA to assist in the NextGen Activities. It 

also explains that the President of NATCA has an existing seat on 

two primary traffic advisory committees, the joint program and development office’s institute management counsel, and the operational evolution partnership (OEP) associates team. In a May 24 

letter, the FAA invites NATCA to continue to take part on the 

OEP, and in a separate letter, invites PASS to participate on the 

OEP. 

The Committee is encouraged that the FAA appears to understand the importance of collective bargaining participation in air 

traffic modernization projects, and directs the FAA to continue this 

spirit of cooperation so fundamental to the success of the agency. 

BILL LANGUAGE

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

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $130,234,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 140,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 140,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +9,766,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

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

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

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $140,000,000, an increase of 

$9,766,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and equal to 

the President’s budget estimate. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2008 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
34 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

Program Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Committee recommendation 

Improve Commercial Aviation Safety ........................................ $88,231,780 $91,256,000 $91,256,000 

Fire research and safety .................................................. 6,638,000 7,350,000 7,350,000 

Propulsion and fuel systems ........................................... 4,048,000 4,086,000 4,086,000 

Advanced materials/structural safety ............................. 2,843,000 2,713,000 2,713,000 

Atmospheric hazards/digital system safety .................... 3,848,000 3,574,000 3,574,000 

Aging aircraft ................................................................... 18,621,000 14,931,000 14,931,000 

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention .......................... 1,512,000 2,202,000 2,202,000 

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ............................. 7,999,000 9,651,000 9,651,000 

Aviation safety risk analysis ........................................... 5,292,000 9,517,000 9,517,000 

ATC/AF human factors ..................................................... 9,654,000 10,254,000 10,254,000 

Aeromedical research ....................................................... 7,031,780 6,780,000 6,780,000 

Weather research ............................................................. 19,545,000 16,888,000 16,888,000 

Unmanned aircraft system .............................................. 1,200,000 3,310,000 3,310,000 

Improve Efficiency of the ATC System ..................................... 21,166,000 28,676,000 28,676,000 

Joint program and development office ............................ 18,100,000 14,321,000 14,321,000 

Wake turbulence .............................................................. 3,066,000 10,755,000 10,755,000 

GPS Civil Requirements ................................................... 0 3,600,000 3,600,000 

Reduce Environmental Impacts ................................................ 16,017,410 15,469,000 15,469,000 

Environment and energy .................................................. 16,017,410 15,469,000 15,469,000 

Mission Support ........................................................................ 4,818,450 4,599,000 4,599,000 

System planning and resource mgmt ............................. 1,388,450 1,184,000 1,184,000 

Technical laboratory facilities ......................................... 3,430,000 3,415,000 3,415,000 

Total ........................................................................ 130,233,640 140,000,000 140,000,000 

Helicopter emergency medical services weather tool.—The Committee notes that the air ambulance industry improves the survival 

of trauma victims and other critical patients. Air ambulance flights 

are subject to greater risks than other helicopter operations because they often fly at night, in a variety of weather conditions, 

and to remote sites to provide medical attention. The Committee 

notes that the FAA research budget increases funding for the helicopter emergency medical services weather tool and the national 

ceiling visibility research from the fiscal year 2007 level. The Committee supports this program which provides weather information 

for low altitude, off-airport operations and helps ensure safety. 

Flight data and cockpit voice recorders.—The Committee understands that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

plans to evaluate the safety and security benefits of deployable 

flight data and cockpit voice recorders equipped with emergency locator transmitters. The Committee encourages FAA to coordinate 

with TSA to test such technologies on civilian passenger aircraft in 

order to identify those that would improve the survivability of 

flight data and cockpit voice recorders following civil aviation disasters. 

Flight attendant fatigue.—The Committee directs FAA to continue to study the phenomenon of flight attendant fatigue. The 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s September 2005 report stated 

that ‘‘flight attendant fatigue appears to be a salient issue warranting further evaluation’’. It recommended continued study on incident reports, field research on fatigue, improving models for assessing flight attendant fatigue, review of international policies and 

practices, and development of training material. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
35 

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on 

obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................................... $4,399,000,000 ($3,514,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................................... 4,300,000,000 (2,750,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 4,399,000,000 (3,600,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................................... ––– (+85,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ...................................................................... +99,000,000 (+850,000,000) 

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$4,399,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-inaid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and 

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. This is 

$99,000,000 above the amount requested in the President’s budget 

and equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,600,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2008. This is $850,000,000 above the President’s budget 

and $85,500,000 over the fiscal year 2007 level. 

ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, 

$80,676,000 is available for administration of the airports program 

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

research pilot program, and up to $18,712,000 for the airport technology research. These levels are consistent with the request. 

HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

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

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

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

purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum extent 

possible, the administrator should work to ensure that airport 

sponsors for these projects first use available entitlement funds to 

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

to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary projects funded in 

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

year 2007 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that 

the specific funding allocated above shall not diminish or prejudice 

the application of a specific airport or geographic region to receive 

other AIP discretionary grants or multiyear letters of intent. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
36 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 08 HR238.021
37 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 09 HR238.022
38 

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................... ¥$25,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommened in the bill ..................................................................... ¥$185,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ....................................................... ¥160,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ..................................................... ¥185,500,000 

The Committee recommendation includes a rescission of contract 

authorization of $185,500,000 from contract authority in fiscal year 

2007 above the obligation limitation provided in that year. Therefore, this rescission has no effect on any grants-in-aid program. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.—Consistent 

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

through 2007 Appropriations Acts, the bill allows funds under this 

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

Small community air service development program.—The bill 

specifies that $10,000,000 of the total amount limited is available 

to continue the small community air service development program. 

Administration and research programs.—The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, $80,676,000 is available for 

administration of the airports program by the FAA. The Committee 

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

program, and up to $18,712,000 for the airport technology research 

program. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring FAA to 

accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated equipment 

procured by airports, subject to certain criteria. 

Section 111. The Committee retains, without modification, a provision limiting the number of technical workyears at the Center for 

Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 375 in fiscal year 

2008. 

Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without 

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

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

specified exceptions. 

Section 113. The Committee continues a provision allowing reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303. 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 

Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

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

commonly known as the ‘‘war risk insurance’’ program, for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2008. This 

will extend provisions relating to premium price caps, which were 

set to expire at the end of this calendar year. In addition, it also 

extends the underlying program from March 2008 to December 31, 

2008. The Committee recommendation preserves the status quo 

under this program, a savings of $164,000,000 from the budget esVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.002 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
39 

timate. Savings accrue because the bill’s provisions result in additional revenue from insurance premiums, which were assumed to 

be zero in the budget estimate for fiscal year 2008. 

Section. 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting 

funds to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at 

Teterboro Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial 

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

States Code and other supporting legislation provide authority for 

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

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

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

provides for increased transportation infrastructure investment, 

strengthens transportation safety and environmental programs, 

and continues core research activities. SAFETEA–LU also amended 

the Budget Enforcement Act to continue two discretionary spending 

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

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

Carrier Safety Administration’s motor carrier safety funding, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) highway safety grants funding and NHTSA’s highway safety research 

and development funding. If appropriations action forces highway 

obligations to exceed this level, the resulting difference in outlays 

is charged to the discretionary spending category. In addition, in 

fiscal year 2008, if receipts into the highway account of the highway trust fund exceed levels specified in SAFETEA–LU, automatic 

adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly. Additional resources provided by this automatic spending mechanism are called revenuealigned budget authority (RABA). 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 PROGRAM

SAFETEA–LU caps the highway category obligations at 

$40,824,075,404 in fiscal year 2008 and, within that amount, limits 

federal-aid highway obligations to $39,585,075,404. In addition, the 

provisions of SAFETEA–LU require an increase of $630,975,955 in 

fiscal year 2008 in federal-aid highway funding due to RABA. This 

combined total highway funding level of $40,216,051,359 represents 

a 3.2 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level of 

$38,965,232,253. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent 

with the levels guaranteed by SAFETEA–LU, as adjusted for 

RABA. The following table summarizes the program levels within 

the FHWA for fiscal year 2007 enacted, the fiscal year 2008 budget 

request and the Committee’s recommendation: 

Program Fiscal year 2007 enacted Fiscal year 2008 request Recommended in the bill 

Federal-aid highways .................................. 1 $38,122,978 $39,585,075 $39,585,075 

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) 842,254 — 630,976 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
40 

Program Fiscal year 2007 enacted Fiscal year 2008 request Recommended in the bill 

Subtotal .............................................. 38,965,232 39,585,075 40,216,051 

Exempt contract authority .......................... 740,737 739,000 739,000 

Subtotal .............................................. 39,705,969 40,324,075 40,955,051 

Appropriation for pay raise (Sec. 111, P.L. 

110–5) .................................................... 2,794 — — 

Appalachian development highway system 

(GF) ......................................................... 19,800 — — 

Emergency relief program—P.L. 110–28 

(GF) ......................................................... 871,022 — — 

Rescission of contract authority ................. ¥4,342,604 ¥1,999,976 ¥3,385,286 

Rescission of budget authority ................... — ¥409,469 ¥4,765 

Total .......................................... 36,256,981 37,914,630 37,565,000 

1 Reflects transfer of funds to NHTSA. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... ($360,991,620) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... (384,556,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (384,556,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. (+23,564,380) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of 

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

highway programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $384,556,000, consistent with the budget request and $23,564,380 above the fiscal 

year 2007 level. 

Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).—The funding level provided by the Committee includes the resources necessary for the 

FHWA to fill 215 vacancies in order to hire up to the FTE ceiling 

of 2,430 FTE in fiscal year 2008. 

Unobligated balances in miscellaneous accounts.—The Committee 

has once again included several provisions in the bill that rescinds 

unobligated balances of contract authority that are either no longer 

needed because the projects have been completed or cannot be 

spent due to limitations on obligations set in this Act or prior Acts, 

such as SAFETEA–LU. The Committee continues to encourage the 

FHWA to identify unneeded balances, especially related to unobligated highway project funds which have been designated for specific purposes and geographic locations and cannot be used for another project without legislative action and which would otherwise 

remain unobligated indefinitely. Therefore, the Committee directs 

the FHWA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by February 1, 2008, detailing how the agency 

is reviewing unobligated project funds and the processes it has for 

notifying Congress of those projects where legislative action is 

needed. In addition, the Committee understands that Section 1603 

of SAFETEA–LU addresses the use of excess funds and funds for 

inactive projects that were allocated before fiscal year 1991. The 

Committee directs the FHWA to include with the fiscal year 2009 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
41 

budget submission a description of any action taken under that section in fiscal year 2007. 

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... ($425,502,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... (429,800,000) 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. (+4,298,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

This limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

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

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

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

of this report. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for transportation research of $429,800,000 in fiscal year 2008 for the following transportation research programs: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization 

Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................................... $36,032,343,903 ($38,965,232,253) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................................... 38,000,000,000 (39,585,075,404) 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................................... 40,955,051,359 (40,216,051,359) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................................. +4,922,707,456 (+1,250,819,106) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .............................................................. +2,955,051,359 (+630,975,955) 

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

the development, operations and management of an intermodal 

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

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

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


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
42 

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

subsequently provided to fund outlays resulting from obligations 

incurred under contract authority. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of 

$40,955,051,359. This is the amount required to pay the outstanding obligations of the highway program at levels provided in 

this Act and prior appropriations Acts. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2008 federal-aid 

highways obligations to $40,216,051,359, consistent with the 

SAFETEA–LU highway funding guarantees as adjusted for RABA. 

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

is available to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

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

The Committee has also included bill language that allows the 

Secretary to charge and collect fees from the applicant for a direct 

loan, guaranteed loan, or line of credit to cover the cost of the financial and legal analyses performed on behalf of the Department. 

These fees are not subject to any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses set for the transportation infrastructure finance and innovation program under section 608 of title 

23, United States Code. 

Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of 

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

$40,216,051,359 provided by this Act and additional resources 

made available by permanent law: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Programs FY 2006 

limitation 

FY 2007 

limitation 

FY 2008 est. 

limitation 

Subject to limitation: 

Surface transportation program .................................................................... 5,139,465 5,621,419 5,998,864

National highway system ............................................................................... 4,879,210 5,337,589 5,696,201 

Interstate maintenance .................................................................................. 3,994,609 4,370,819 4,664,604 

Bridge program .............................................................................................. 3,412,935 3,734,641 3,985,720 

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement .................................... 1,393,288 1,523,840 1,626,137 

Highway safety improvement program .......................................................... 866,641 931,854 994,124 

Equity bonus .................................................................................................. 5,858,197 7,500,737 8,495,718 

Surface transportation research program ..................................................... 169,159 180,829 188,155 

University transportation research and training and education .................. 83,029 88,757 92,353 

ITS standards, research and development .................................................... 94,743 101,279 105,382 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics .............................................................. 26,730 27,469 27,401 

Federal lands highways ................................................................................. 701,440 815,623 913,951 

High priority projects ..................................................................................... 2,554,960 2,731,212 2,841,869 

Projects of national and regional significance ............................................. 306,451 409,488 426,079 

National corridor infrastructure improvement program ................................ 335,562 448,389 466,555 

Transportation improvements ........................................................................ 440,165 588,162 611,991 

Appalachian development highway system ................................................... 395,296 423,820 443,680 

Transportation, community, and system preservation program ................... 52,755 56,394 58,679 

Other programs .............................................................................................. 4,501,315 3,720,825 2,077,154 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
43 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAM—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Programs FY 2006 

limitation 

FY 2007 

limitation 

FY 2008 est. 

limitation 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation (TIFIA) ...................... 105,079 112,327 116,878 

Administration ................................................................................................ 360,992 360,992 384,556 

Total subject to obligation limitation ................................................... 35,672,020 39,086,465 40,216,051 

Emergency relief program ....................................................................................... 100,000 101,737 100,000 

Equity bonus ........................................................................................................... 639,000 639,000 639,000 

Total exempt programs ......................................................................... 739,000 740,737 739,000 

Emergency relief supplements ................................................................................ 1 3,452,363 1 871,022 — 

Grand total, Federal-aid highways (direct) .......................................... 39,863,383 40,698,224 40,955,051 

1 General Fund appropriation (FY 2006: P.L. 109–148, P.L. 109–234; FY 2007: P.L. 110–28). 

The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state: 

ESTIMATED FY 2008 OBLIGATION LIMITATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State Formula Obligation 

Limitation 

Formula Obligation 

Limitation RABA Equity Bonus 

Appalachian Development Highway 

System 

Total 

Alabama .............. 574,512 10,556 53,532 27,598 666,198 

Alaska .................. 243,543 4,885 44,021 0 292,449 

Arizona ................. 597,127 10,415 50,328 0 657,870 

Arkansas .............. 380,533 6,684 27,463 0 414,679 

California ............. 2,691,034 46,479 160,315 0 2,897,828 

Colorado .............. 418,986 6,962 17,656 0 443,604 

Connecticut ......... 389,789 6,870 31,802 0 428,461 

Delaware .............. 125,382 2,104 4,119 0 131,605 

District of Columbia ................... 132,556 2,093 0 0 134,649 

Florida ................. 1,530,876 27,251 157,052 0 1,715,180 

Georgia ................ 1,035,159 18,773 110,253 16,915 1,181,100 

Hawaii ................. 131,046 2,157 4,473 0 137,676 

Idaho ................... 222,907 3,918 20,314 0 247,139 

Illinois .................. 1,028,307 17,608 69,938 0 1,115,853 

Indiana ................ 770,454 13,637 75,058 0 859,149 

Iowa ..................... 354,165 5,698 5,433 0 365,296 

Kansas ................. 326,680 5,194 1,858 0 333,733 

Kentucky .............. 475,864 9,082 28,023 64,727 577,697 

Louisiana ............. 483,954 8,228 16,224 0 508,406 

Maine ................... 147,535 2,329 957 0 150,822 

Maryland .............. 502,661 8,534 25,576 6,054 542,824 

Massachusetts .... 526,252 8,485 8,976 0 543,713 

Michigan .............. 921,922 15,850 66,475 0 1,004,257 

Minnesota ............ 478,810 8,462 36,600 0 523,871 

Mississippi .......... 371,396 6,378 15,495 5,005 398,273 

Missouri ............... 715,227 12,406 44,431 0 772,064 

Montana .............. 285,830 5,062 27,966 0 318,858 

Nebraska ............. 239,274 3,869 4,626 0 247,769 

Nevada ................ 219,343 3,677 10,889 0 233,909 

New Hampshire ... 140,319 2,332 5,941 0 148,592 

New Jersey ........... 843,506 14,362 53,217 0 911,085 

New Mexico .......... 290,791 5,062 17,988 0 313,841 

New York ............. 1,380,978 23,097 48,816 21,309 1,474,199 

North Carolina ..... 840,850 15,287 73,519 30,095 965,751 

North Dakota ....... 200,631 3,280 5,726 0 209,637 

Ohio ..................... 1,079,562 19,401 85,826 19,373 1,204,163 

Oklahoma ............ 469,938 8,022 30,723 0 508,683 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
44 

ESTIMATED FY 2008 OBLIGATION LIMITATION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State Formula Obligation Limitation 

Formula Obligation 

Limitation RABA Equity Bonus 

Appalachian Development Highway 

System 

Total 

Oregon ................. 363,870 6,010 7,656 0 377,536 

Pennsylvania ....... 1,281,461 23,021 63,759 97,623 1,465,865 

Rhode Island ....... 162,579 2,606 0 0 165,184 

South Carolina .... 516,420 8,974 39,625 2,742 567,762 

South Dakota ....... 205,494 3,538 10,899 0 219,932 

Tennessee ............ 637,864 11,767 47,726 33,012 730,369 

Texas ................... 2,588,489 45,211 221,331 0 2,855,031 

Utah ..................... 230,993 3,843 9,971 0 244,807 

Vermont ............... 137,108 2,204 0 0 139,312 

Virginia ................ 792,638 14,545 63,741 31,562 902,486 

Washington .......... 554,232 8,968 11,085 0 574,286 

West Virginia ....... 252,516 5,692 17,342 81,664 357,214 

Wisconsin ............ 582,621 10,308 56,565 0 649,495 

Wyoming .............. 205,914 3,596 8,689 0 218,199 

Subtotal ...... 30,079,897 524,781 2,000,000 443,680 33,048,358 

High priority 

projects ........... 2,797,815 44,054 0 0 2,841,869 

Allocated programs .............. 4,263,684 62,140 0 0 4,325,824 

Total limitation ......... 37,141,395 630,976 2,000,000 443,680 40,216,051 

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership 

and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of 

roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate 

federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, 

the terms of which vary with the type of road. 

There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United 

States and approximately 594,000 bridges. The federal government 

provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and 

preservation of about 971,000 miles (24 percent) of these roads, 

which represents the National Highway System plus key feeder 

and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 

85 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. Under SAFETEA–LU, federal-aid highways funds are made available through the following 

major programs: 

Surface transportation program (STP).—STP is a flexible program that may be used by states and localities for projects on any 

federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and state sub-allocations are provided. The federal 

share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale 

adjustment, with a four-year availability period. 

National highway system (NHS).—The NHS program provides 

funding for a designated National Highway System consisting of 

roads that are of primary federal interest. The NHS consists of the 

current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways 

and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.002 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
45 

fense Department’s designated Strategic Highway Network, and 

roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. Legislation designating the 161,000 mile system was enacted in 1995 and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) added to 

the system the highways and connections to transportation facilities identified in the May 24, 1996, report to Congress. The federal 

share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the 

sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of four-years. 

Interstate maintenance (IM) program.—The IM program finances 

projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the 

Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other 

than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The federal share for 

the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for four years. 

Funds provided for the IM discretionary program in fiscal year 

2008 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
46 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 012 HR238.023
47 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 013 HR238.024
48 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.—The bridge program enables states to improve the condition of their bridges 

through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 

maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors 

and as local. Bridge program funds have a four-year period of availability with a federal share for all projects, except those on the 

Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the Interstate System, the federal share 

is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. There is a set-aside of $100,000,000 from the fiscal year 2008 

funding for the bridge program that is designated for specific 

projects listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program 

(CMAQ).—The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation 

projects and programs to help meet and maintain national ambient 

air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. A minimum 1⁄2 percent of the apportionment is guaranteed 

to each state. 

The Committee strongly disagrees with the FHWA’s proposal to 

change its longstanding policy regarding the use of CMAQ funds 

for operating assistance for new start projects. The previous policy 

established under TEA–21 allowed CMAQ funds to be used for operating assistance to help support the initiation of new rail and bus 

service for up to three years. The FHWA’s proposed guidance continues to permit the use of CMAQ for bus service but unfairly denies fixed guideway projects needed funds for new transit operations. The Committee believes that new rail systems have a beneficial effect on air quality and congestion which is the very purpose 

of the CMAQ program. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that SAFETEA–LU required any change to the existing standard in this regard. Finally, with the Administration’s announcement on May 31, 2007, regarding a ‘‘new international climate 

change framework’’ and its related goal of reducing greenhouse 

gases, the Committee believes it is timely and appropriate to direct 

the Secretary to revisit this proposed policy and reinstitute CMAQ 

eligibility regarding operating assistance for new start projects for 

up to three years. 

Highway safety improvement program (HSIP).—The new HSIP 

(previously funded by a set-aside from STP) was established as a 

core program beginning in 2006. The program, which features strategic safety planning and performance, devotes additional resources 

and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities 

and injuries on all public roads. 

Appalachian development highway system.—This program makes 

funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, funding is authorized at $470,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; is available until expended; 

and is distributed among the 13 eligible states based on the latest 

available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian 

Regional Commission. 

Equity bonus program.—The equity bonus (replaces TEA–21’s 

minimum guarantee) provides additional funds to states to ensure 

that each state’s total funding from apportioned programs and for 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
49 

high priority projects meets certain equity considerations. Each 

state is guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the highway trust fund, and 

a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under TEA–21. Certain states will maintain the 

share of total apportionments they each received during TEA–21. 

An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will 

be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. 

Emergency relief (ER).—The ER program provides funds for the 

repair or reconstruction of federal-aid highways and bridges and 

federally-owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The 

ER program supplements the commitment of resources by states, 

their political subdivisions, or federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. 

The authorization for the ER program has been set at 

$100,000,000 per year since 1972. However, the number of disasters and the expense associated with the damages caused by these 

disasters has far exceeded this annual authorization for a very long 

time. In fact, a GAO report issued in February 2007 noted that ER 

allocations have averaged over $730,000,000 per year from fiscal 

year 1998 through fiscal year 2006 and the additional needs for 

this program have been met by supplemental funding measures 

provided by this Committee. During consideration of the U.S. Troop 

Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, the Committee once again worked 

to address the needs of the ER program. However, during this process, it came to the Committee’s attention that there were inconsistencies with regard to how projects were placed on the FHWA’s ER 

backlog list and how pending ER requests were being communicated to Congress. In light of this, the Committee directs the 

FHWA to undertake a review of the ER program and update the 

policy and procedures manual used by the FHWA, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and local transportation agencies 

to apply and administer ER funds. The review should address and 

make appropriate improvements to the process used by the FHWA 

to approve and process ER funding requests; the process and documentation required to establish eligibility; the process used to encourage states to expeditiously submit formal requests, and other 

issues identified during the review by the FHWA or state DOTs. 

The Committee directs the FHWA to provide a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 1, 2007, on 

the results of the review. 

Federal lands.—This category funds improvement for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads; and refuge roads. The federal lands highways program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that provide access to 

or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations. 

Funds provided for the federallands program in fiscal year 2008 

shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
50 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 015 HR238.025
51 

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be 

derived from the FHWA’s public lands highways discretionary program and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s 

regions. 

Baltimore Washington Parkway feasibility study.—The Committee directs the FHWA’s Office of Federal Lands Highways to 

work with the National Park Service and the Maryland State Highway Administration to determine the feasibility of adding a third 

northbound and a third southbound lane for Maryland Route 295/ 

Baltimore Washington Parkway from the intersection with Interstate 695 to New York Avenue in the District of Columbia. The 

FHWA shall prepare a report which must be submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 

one year after the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility 

of such a widening. The feasibility study shall include an assessment of the impact of the Base Realignment and Closure process 

on traffic throughout the Maryland Route 295 corridor between 

Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC. 

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—SAFETEA–LU reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities and requires that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009 be set aside for marine highway systems 

that are part of the National Highway System for use by the states 

of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2008, 

SAFETEA–LU provides $65,000,000 for the ferry boat program. 

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 

program in fiscal year 2008 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
52 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 HR238.026
53 

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways 

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. In fiscal year 2008, 

SAFETEA–LU provides $40,000,000 for this program. 

Transportation, community, and system preservation (TCSP) program.—SAFETEA–LU continues the TCSP program to provide 

grants to states and local governments for planning, developing, 

and implementing strategies to integrate transportation, community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants 

may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; 

reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce 

the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and 

provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Funds provided for the TCSP program in fiscal year 2008 shall 

be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
54 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 HR238.027
55 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 HR238.028
56 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 022 HR238.029
57 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 HR238.030
58 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 024 HR238.031
59 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 025 HR238.032
60 

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation (TIFIA) 

program.—The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in 

the development of surface transportation projects of regional and 

national significance. The goal is to develop major infrastructure 

facilities through greater non-federal and private sector participation, building on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or 

user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than 

would be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA 

program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby 

lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. As 

required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 

records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 1992 

and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any year), as 

well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy 

amounts are estimated on a present value basis; the administrative 

expenses are estimated on a cash basis. 

Federal highway research, technology and education.—Research, 

technology, and education programs develop new transportation 

technology that can be applied nationwide. Activities include surface transportation research, including intelligent transportation 

systems; development and deployment, training and education; university transportation research. 

High priority projects.—Funds are provided for specific projects 

identified in SAFETEA–LU. A total of 5,091 projects are identified, 

each with a specified amount of funding over the five years of 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Projects of national and regional significance.—Provides funding 

for specific projects of national or regional importance. All the 

funds authorized for this program from the highway trust fund are 

designated for projects listed in SAFETEA–LU. 

Congestion Reduction Initiative.—The budget requested 

$175,000,000 to support a new Department-wide effort to tackle 

congestion in all modes of transportation. The stated goal of this 

initiative was to improve quality of life and economic growth by 

spreading demand by route, mode, and time of day, and by more 

efficient operation of the existing transportation system. The budget proposed to fund this initiative by reprogramming unobligated 

balances associated with what was described as ‘‘inactive’’ Federalaid highway program demonstration projects. 

The Committee believes that efforts to reduce congestion are a 

worthwhile objective. However, the Committee cannot support this 

initiative as proposed by the Administration. First, the Administration did not do a thorough analysis to determine whether the proposed funding source—the reprogramming of inactive project funding—was, in fact, no longer needed by those projects. The Committee also believes that the Administration’s congestion proposal 

should have been more comprehensive in scope and had involved 

other modal administrations. For instance, the Administration’s 

budget request was a bit disingenuous in that it requested 

$175,000,000 for a congestion reduction initiative at the same time 

it also proposed major cuts to Amtrak and transit programs. Clearly, rail and transit should be a major part of any initiatives to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.002 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
61 

duce congestion. The Committee notes that the Administration has 

significant discretion with regard to selecting projects for the various highway and transit allocated programs in the fiscal year 

2007. The Committee will review how the Administration uses 

these resources to address congestion and determine whether additional funding for the congestion initiative needs to be revisited either later in the fiscal year 2008 process or in next year’s budget. 

Impacts of Defense Base Realignments on Transportation.—The 

Committee understands that GAO has an ongoing review of the effects of Department of Defense (DOD) rebasing initiatives on communities and is assessing the economic impacts on communities 

surrounding DOD bases receiving large numbers of personnel as a 

result of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), overseas rebasing, and Army modularity actions The Committee directs GAO 

to include as a part of that review the impacts DOD’s base realignments will have on transit and transportation needs in these regions. GAO’s analysis should take into account BRAC related traffic projections for the next decade and the associated future planning needs of state and local governments while ensuring the national security needs of these facilities. GAO should coordinate 

their evaluation with DOT, and with the appropriate state transportation agencies to the extent possible, to include comprehensive 

and innovative solutions to anticipate and relieve congestion and 

transportation alternatives that will help reduce carbon emissions. 

(RESCISSION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The bill includes a rescission of $3,000,000,000 of the unobligated 

balances of funds apportioned to the states under chapter 1 of title 

23, United States Code, and applies this rescission proportionally 

to each highway program, including funds set aside for transportation enhancements and within the state of population areas. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that distributes 

obligation authority among federal-aid highways programs. 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 

Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed demonstration or 

high priority projects from the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102–240. The specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded were identified in information 

provided to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and referenced in a GAO letter to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations dated May 11, 2006. The FHWA should also look at 

closing out projects with small balances, such as less than $2,000, 

in order to achieve the amount rescinded in the bill. 

Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed high priority 

projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
62 

Public Law 105–178. The specific authorizations and amounts to be 

rescinded were also identified by GAO in their May 11, 2006, letter. 

Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program. 

Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available for obligation because of the limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this 

Act and prior Acts. 

Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109–59 that will not be available 

for obligation because of the limitation on obligations imposed on 

those funds in this Act and prior Acts. 

Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances made available for highway related safety 

grants in prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed demonstration or 

high priority projects from previous laws. The specific authorizations and amounts to be rescinded were identified in information 

provided to GAO and referenced in their letter dated May 11, 2006. 

Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that provides 

additional funding to the transportation, community, and system 

preservation program. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial vehicle 

operations on our nation’s highways. To accomplish this mission, 

the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity of 

large truck accidents. Agency resources and activities contribute to 

ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against 

safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; 

improvements in information systems; training; and improvements 

to commercial driver’s license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, the FMCSA works closely 

with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

In addition, the FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican commercial vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all U.S. 

hazardous material and safety regulations. 

The FMCSA’s scope was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the 

U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107–56), which called for new security measures. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2002, Appropriations Acts (Public Law 107–87, Public Law 108–7, Public Law 

108–199, and Public Law 108–447) have funded border enforcement and safety related activities associated with implementation 

of NAFTA, and activities associated with permitting of hazardous 

materials. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

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


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
63 

reauthorizes the motor carrier safety activities of FMCSA through 

fiscal year 2009 and provides increased funding for many of the 

agency’s programs. Funding for the FMCSA is also included within 

a highway discretionary spending category in the Budget Enforcement Act that is adjusted annually beginning in fiscal year 2007 

based on receipts into the highway account of the highway trust 

fund. Additional resources provided by this automatic spending 

mechanism are called revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA) 

and a portion of this adjustment is added to FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................................. $294,000,000 ($294,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................................. 300,000,000 (300,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill .......................................................................................... 300,000,000 (300,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................................ +6,000,000 (+6,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

The FMCSA’s motor carrier safety grants program was authorized by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, and continued through fiscal year 2009 by SAFETEA–LU. This account 

provides the necessary resources to the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) state grants. Grants are used to support 

compliance reviews in the states; identify and apprehend traffic 

violators; conduct roadside inspections; and support safety audits 

on new entrant carriers. Grants are also provided to states for enforcement efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of entry into the U.S. are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; for improvement of state commercial 

driver’s license (CDL) oversight activities to prevent unqualified 

drivers from being issued CDLs; and for improving the linkage between state motor vehicle registration systems and carrier safety 

data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

this program. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$300,000,000 for the grant programs of FMCSA. This level is consistent with SAFETEA–LU and is $6,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2007 level. In addition, consistent with SAFETEA–LU, the highway funding guarantees are adjusted for RABA in fiscal year 2008. 

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


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
64 

is available to FMCSA for the motor carrier safety grant program 

and bill language is included under the Federal Highway Administration to transfer this funding to FMCSA. 

The bill also provides separate obligation limitations for the following funding allocations: 

Motor carrier safety assistance program ............................................. ($202,000,000) 

Commercial driver’s license improvements program .......................... (25,000,000) 

Border enforcement grants ................................................................... (32,000,000) 

Performance and registration information system management program .................................................................................................... (5,000,000) 

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks deployment 

program ............................................................................................... (25,000,000) 

Safety data improvement program ....................................................... (3,000,000) 

Commercial driver’s license information system modernization program .................................................................................................... (8,000,000) 

New entrant audits.—Section 4107 of SAFETEA–LU provides the 

Secretary the discretion to deduct up to $29,000,000 of the funds 

made available for motor carrier safety grants for audits of new entrant motor carriers. The interim final rule for the new entrant 

safety assurance process was published on May 13, 2002, with an 

effective date of January 2003. This rule requires all new entrants 

to pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of operations in 

order to receive permanent DOT registration. Therefore, the Committee recommendation continues bill language requiring FMCSA 

to provide $29,000,000 for new entrant audits. 

Unobligated balances.—The Committee includes bill language 

that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under this 

heading that will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................................... $223,000,000 ($223,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................................... 228,000,000 (228,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 228,000,000 (228,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................................... +5,000,000 (+5,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ...................................................................... – – – (– – –) 

This limitation controls spending for salaries and operating expenses and for motor carrier research by the FMCSA. It provides 

the necessary resources to support motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency’s administrative infrastructure. 

Funding supports nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer 

enforcement efforts, including federal safety enforcement activities 

at the U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering 

the U.S. are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
65 

research and technology, safety education and outreach, and the 

safety and consumer telephone hotline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $228,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

the operations and research activities of the FMCSA, consistent 

with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA– 

LU. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$228,000,000 for the implementation, execution, and administration of the motor carrier safety program, motor carrier safety research, and motor carrier outreach and education programs by the 

FMCSA. This funding level is consistent with SAFETEA–LU and 

represents a $5,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2007. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 

to the fiscal year 2008 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation for these specific programs: 

Fiscal year 

2007 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2008 estimate 

House recommended 

Operating Expenses .................................................................. $161,176,000 $172,659,000 $169,413,000 

Research and Technology ......................................................... 10,296,000 7,550,000 10,296,000 

Information Management .......................................................... 34,318,000 33,329,000 33,329,000 

Regulatory Development ........................................................... 11,210,000 9,462,000 11,462,000 

Outreach and Education ........................................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,500,000 

CMV Operating Grants .............................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

Total ................................................................................. 222,000,000 228,000,000 228,000,000 

Operating expenses.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$169,413,000 for the operating expenses of FMCSA which is an increase of $8,237,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

a decrease of $3,246,000 below the level requested in the budget. 

These funds are to be used to support FMCSA’s core mission requirements of commercial motor vehicle safety enforcement and 

compliance; hazardous material enforcement and compliance; hazardous materials security operations and outreach; emergency preparedness; and household goods enforcement and compliance. The 

Committee approves FMCSA’s requested increase of $7,149,000 for 

personnel pay, compensation and benefits. In addition, the Committee approves FMCSA’s request to provide $1,000,000 for the operations of the Performance and Registration Information System 

Management Program (PRISM). However, the Committee disagrees 

with FMCSA’s proposal to increase the agency’s contract services 

by 33.5 percent above last year’s enacted level. 

Reduce contract services ....................................................................... ¥$3,246,000 

Safety compliance reviews.—Motor carrier safety has been on the 

National Transportation Safety Board’s ‘‘Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements’’ list since 2000 due to FMCSA’s inadequate standards to identify unsafe vehicles and drivers. In that regard, the Committee continues to be greatly concerned that only a 

very small percentage of registered motor carriers undergo a safety 

compliance review each year. According to the agency’s own budget 

documents, FMCSA has not increased the number of compliance 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
66 

reviews since fiscal year 2005. This is not acceptable. With over 

685,000 registered interstate motor carriers, the Committee strongly believes FMCSA should strive to increase the number of compliance reviews each year and not be satisfied with a compliance review rate of less than 1.5 percent. The Committee expects FMCSA 

to prepare a safety oversight action plan that will achieve significant increases in the number of compliance reviews that the agency 

completes each year. The Committee directs FMCSA to provide a 

letter report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six months of enactment of this Act that compares the 

agency’s compliance review goals to the actual number of completed 

compliance reviews. 

Research and technology.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,296,000 for FMCSA’s research and technology programs 

which is the same level provided in fiscal year 2007 and $2,746,000 

above the level requested in the budget. The Committee includes 

bill language making the funds for the research and technology 

programs available until September 30, 2009. The research and 

technology program is utilized to conduct scientific studies of commercial motor vehicle technologies as well as to test and develop 

commercial motor vehicle driver, carrier, vehicle and roadside best 

practices and technologies. The Committee disagrees with the 

budget request to reduce the research and technology efforts of the 

FMCSA below the levels provided in fiscal year 2007. The Committee believes that advances in commercial motor vehicle research 

and technology hold promise for improving safety on our nation’s 

highways. 

Increase research and technology ......................................................... +$2,746,000 

Information management.—The Committee recommendation includes $33,329,000 for the FMCSA’s information management program which is $989,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 

and the same level requested in the budget. FMCSA will continue 

its development and deployment of the creating opportunities, 

methods, processes, and securing safety (COMPASS) program 

which will modernize the FMCSA’s information technology systems 

by providing a single sign-on capability to access the FMCSA Motor 

Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), the Enforcement Management Information System, and Licensing and Insurance data systems. Future releases of COMPASS will seek to integrate FMCSA’s compliance monitoring functions such as new entrant safety audits; hazardous material safety permits; insurance 

cancellation monitoring; compliance review ratings; driver medical 

certification and the process of out-of-service orders. Given the importance of the safety data in evaluating the performance of commercial motor vehicle carriers, the Committee directs the FMCSA 

to provide a spend plan to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations which details the expected timeline, cost and capability of each release of COMPASS through full deployment. 

FMCSA is directed to deliver this expenditure plan to the Committees no later than 90 days after enactment. 

Regulatory development.—The Committee includes $11,462,000 

for FMCSA’s regulatory development program which represents an 

increase of $252,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$2,000,000 above the level requested in the budget. The Committee 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
67 

strongly believes that FMCSA should not reduce its regulatory development efforts at a time when the agency carries a backlog of 

overdue safety regulations and when the Courts have found other 

key safety regulations to be inadequate in meeting safety goals. 

The Committee is concerned that the agency’s effort to reduce the 

backlog of pending regulations may result in rules that are not 

thoroughly developed. While the Committee expects the FMCSA to 

produce safety regulations in a timely fashion, the Committee believes that FMCSA must take great care to ensure that rules are 

constructed to advance the agency’s safety goals and not simply 

rushed to publication only to have them later remanded or vacated 

by the Courts. The Committee has included an increase for regulatory development with the expectation that FMCSA will utilize 

these resources to produce quality safety regulations in a timely 

manner. 

Increase regulatory development ......................................................... +$2,000,000 

Entry level truck driver training.—The Committee restates its 

concern regarding last year’s U.S. Court of Appeals unanimous decision remanding the FMCSA’s final rule on entry level truck driver training. In their decision, the Court found that FMCSA did not 

adequately address the recommendations of a DOT contracted adequacy report and independent model curriculum on driver training. 

According to the Court, FMCSA ‘‘entirely failed to consider important aspects of the CMV training problems before it; it largely ignored the evidence in the adequacy report and abandoned the recommendations of the model curriculum without reasonable explanation; and it adopted a final rule whose terms have almost nothing to do with an ‘‘adequate’’ CMV training program.’’ The Committee is concerned that 15 years has elapsed without the issuance 

of a comprehensive entry-level driver training standard. The Committee is disappointed that FMCSA has yet to reissue its driver 

training rule and expects the agency to carefully consider the obvious benefits of a comprehensive training requirement that includes 

on-street, behind-the-wheel skills training for entry-level truck 

drivers. 

Motor coach accessibility.—Last year, the Committee expressed 

concern over reports that a number of curbside motor coach operators were not in compliance with the Department’s regulations requiring accessibility to over-the-road buses for people with disabilities (49 CFR part 37, Subpart H). The Committee is still not convinced that the FMCSA lacks the authority to withhold interstate 

registration for any motor coach operator that willfully ignores the 

FMCSA’s own regulations in this regard. The Committee does not 

seek to diminish the FMCSA’s primary mission which is safety enforcement of commercial motor vehicles. However, in the agency’s 

normal course of oversight, the Committee believes that FMCSA 

should incorporate compliance with accessibility regulations. The 

Committee understands that the Department of Justice has general enforcement authority for violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (Public Law 101–336) but FMCSA bears a responsibility to enforce its regulations. The Committee urges the Secretary 

to withhold interstate registration from motor coach operators that 

are not willing and able to comply with the department’s regulations on providing access for the disabled. The Committee also reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
68 

states its direction from last year that the Secretary of Transportation provide a letter report by February 15, 2008 to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations that details the specific 

actions Department will to take to improve accessibility for the disabled. 

Outreach and education.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $2,500,000 for FMCSA’s outreach and education programs 

which represents a decrease of $1,500,000 below the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level and the level requested in the budget. The Committee notes that the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance grants and 

the high priority grants can supplement the agency’s public awareness and outreach efforts. The Committee also continues bill language that prohibits any funds relating to outreach and education 

from being transferred to another agency. 

CMV operating grants.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $1,000,000 for commercial motor vehicle operator’s grants 

which is equal to the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the budget 

request. The grants, as required by Section 4134 of SAFETEA–LU, 

are designed to help train operators of commercial motor vehicles 

in the safe use of such vehicles. 

U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.—Section 6901 of 

Public Law 110–28 established conditions and reporting requirements that the Department must meet prior to the initiation of its 

pilot program on cross-border trucking between the United States 

and Mexico. The Committee understands that the Secretary has 

appointed an independent review board to review the data of any 

pilot and assess the safety impacts of allowing Mexican-domiciled 

motor carriers to operate on U.S. roads and highways. The Committee expects that the independent review board will function autonomously and have unfettered access to data on the pilot. In that 

regard, the Committee directs the Secretary to provide adequate 

resources for the board’s review activities. The Committee remains 

greatly concerned about the safety implications of the cross-border 

pilot and will carefully monitor its implementation. 

Motor carrier safety goals.—The Committee notes that over the 

last eight years since the creation of FMCSA, the Department of 

Transportation has modified its motor carrier safety goals on three 

occasions. For example, in 1999, DOT announced it would pursue 

a fifty percent reduction in the number of large truck carrier fatalities in ten years (by the end of 2008). A few years later, FMCSA’s 

safety goals were changed from a goal that measured the overall 

number of motor carrier-related fatalities to a goal that was measured by comparing the number of fatalities per 100 million truck 

miles traveled (MTMT). This performance measure resulted in a 

large truck fatality rate of 2.3 deaths per 100 MTMT which fell far 

short in meeting FMCSA’s own stated goal of 1.65 fatalities per 

100 MTMT. The Committee is concerned that FMCSA has now introduced a new performance measure which portrays the grim fatality rate in a more appealing light. This year, FMCSA set a new 

goal of decreasing the fatality rate by 2011 by comparing commercial motor vehicle crash fatalities against all motor vehicle miles 

traveled in a given year; this denominator includes truck, bus, motorcoach, passenger vehicles and even motorcycle mileage. Since 

crashes with large trucks constitute nearly 13 percent of the total 

number of motor vehicle fatalities each year, the Committee beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
69 

lieves that FMCSA must set aggressive safety goals that strive to 

not only improve the fatality rate but also reduce the overall number of motor carrier related fatalities. Since DOT first announced 

its goal of reducing large truck carrier related fatalities, the total 

number of deaths has been above 5,000 every year except one 

(2002). The Committee expects FMCSA to establish a rigorous safety goal and to develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve their 

goal of reducing the actual number of fatalities. 

Unobligated balances.—The Committee includes bill language 

that rescinds unobligated contract authority authorized under this 

heading that will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥32,187,720 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥32,187,720 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥32,187,720 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized for the old ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ account that will not be available for obligation because of limitations 

on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥5,212,858 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥5,212,858 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥5,212,858 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee includes bill language that rescinds unobligated 

contract authority authorized for the old ‘‘National Motor Carrier 

Safety Program’’ account that will not be available for obligation 

because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 

funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107–87 and section 6901 of Public Law 110– 

28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a report on 

Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
70 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March of 1970. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. 

NHTSA’s current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) 

the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of 

title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.)); (2) the Highway Safety Act 

(chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information 

and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, 

U.S.C.); (4) the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA–LU). 

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for 

the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles 

and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, 

including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register, which was reauthorized by the 

National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.) to be carried 

out by the states and for highway safety research, development, 

and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.). The 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) authorized a 

new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, 

U.S.C.) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk 

driving prevention programs. 

MVICSA provides for the establishment of low-speed collision 

bumper standards, consumer information activities and odometer 

regulations. Amendments to this law established the responsibility 

for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy 

standards, theft prevention standards for high theft lines of passenger motor vehicles, and automobile content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the TREAD Act amended the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Changes included numerous new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement 

that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety 

campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of 

motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar 

to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties 

for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving the safety 

of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint safety rating 

consumer information program. 

SAFETEA–LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of 

NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. These include 

highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, U.S.C.), highway 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
71 

safety research and development (section 403 of title 23, U.S.C.), 

occupant protection incentive grants (section 405 of title 23, 

U.S.C.), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants 

(section 410 of title 23, U.S.C.), and the national driver register 

(chapter 303 of title 49, U.S.C.). SAFETEA–LU also enacted new 

initiatives, such as the high visibility enforcement program (section 

2009 of SAFETEA–LU), motorcyclist safety grants (section 2010 of 

SAFETEA–LU), and child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants (section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU). Finally, SAFETEA– 

LU adopted a number of new motor vehicle safety and information 

provisions, including rulemaking directions to reduce vehicle rollover crashes, reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants, and enhance passenger motor vehicle occupant protection in 

side impact crashes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $836,000,000 for NHTSA to maintain 

current programs and continue its mission to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations: 

2007 enacted 2008 request Committee recommendation 

Operations and research ...................................................................... $228,982,430 $229,750,000 $232,750,000 

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

Total ......................................................................................... 820,732,430 833,000,000 836,000,000 

The Committee’s recommendation is $3,000,000 above the budget 

request and fully funds the highway safety programs included 

within the highway category funding guarantees continued by 

SAFETEA–LU. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(General fund) (Highway trust 

fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 1 .......................................................... – – – $232,982,430 $232,982,430 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ......................................................... – – – 233,750,000 233,750,000 

Recommended in the bill ..................................................................... 125,000,000 111,750,000 236,750,000

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................... +125,000,000 ¥121,232,430 +3,767,570 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +125,000,000 ¥122,000,000 +3,000,000 

1 Includes transfer of funds from FHWA. 

The operations and research appropriations support research, 

demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for 

highway safety programs conducted by state and local government, 

the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety 

associations and organizations. These programs emphasize alcohol 

and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law 

enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic 

records and licensing, state and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and older driver 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
72 

safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2008, NHTSA requested a total of $233,750,000 

for operations and research activities to be funded entirely using 

contract authority from the highway trust fund. This is contrary to 

current law. Under NHTSA’s proposal, SAFETEA–LU would be 

modified to provide additional contract authority in place of the 

current general fund authorization. This funding would then be allocated from two different accounts. First, NHTSA requested 

$229,750,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund to 

finance operations and research activities under section 403 of title 

23, U.S.C., as well as to carry out the provisions of section 301 of 

title 49, U.S.C. and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C. Under 

SAFETEA–LU, only section 403 of title 23, U.S.C. is authorized 

with contract authority out of the highway trust fund. This funding 

is also included within the budgetary firewall guarantee for highway spending. Second, the budget included $4,000,000 for the national driver register, which is authorized by SAFETEA–LU with 

contract authority from the highway trust fund and is included 

within the highway guarantee. 

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation 

limitations for a total program level of $236,750,000, less than a 

two percent increase above fiscal year 2007. Of this total, 

$125,000,000 is for operations and research from the general fund; 

$107,750,000 is for section 403 of title 23, U.S.C., activities from 

the highway trust fund; and $4,000,000 is for the national driver 

register from the highway trust fund. The funding shall be distributed as follows: 

Salaries and benefits .......................................................................... $79,177,000 

Travel .................................................................................................. 1,394,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................ 23,481,000 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance (rulemaking) .............................................. 12,768,000 

Safety assurance (enforcement) ................................................. 18,277,000 

Highway traffic safety programs ............................................... 50,396,000 

Research and analysis ................................................................ 68,834,000 

General administration ............................................................... 673,000 

Grant administration reimbursements ............................................. ¥18,250,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 236,750,000 

Highlights of and adjustments made to the budget request by the 

Committee’s recommendation are described in the following paragraphs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $104,052,000 for salaries and benefits, travel, rent, and other operating expenses of NHTSA, which is 

$1,500,000 above the budget request. This funding level is sufficient to fund 542 full-time equivalent staff years (FTE), the same 

as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 12 FTE above the budget 

request. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
73 

SAFETY PERFORMANCE (RULEMAKING)

NHTSA’s safety performance standards (rulemaking) programs 

support the promulgation of federal motor vehicle safety standards 

for motor vehicles and safety-related equipment; automotive fuel 

economy standards required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act; international harmonization of vehicle standards; and consumer information on motor vehicle safety, including the new car 

assessment program. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee provides $12,768,000 for these activities. 

New car assessment program (NCAP).—Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $7,893,000 for NCAP. 

Safety-related rulemaking.—SAFETEA–LU required NHTSA to 

issue or upgrade a number of important motor vehicle safety standards that included rollover prevention, ejection prevention, door 

locks, roof strength, and side impact protection. While the agency 

has expressed a commitment to issue these rules in a timely fashion, the Committee is concerned that NHTSA is taking a one-dimensional approach to developing the requirements for each rule 

whereas most real-world crashes involve a combination of a these 

issues. For example, a rollover crash often also involves roof crush, 

door lock strength, and occupant ejection. For this reason, it is imperative that NHTSA not deal with each issue separately but instead takes a comprehensive, systems engineering approach that 

integrates all aspects of real-world crashes when issuing these 

standards for motor vehicles, including large passenger-carrying 

motor vehicles, such as motorcoaches and school buses. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 2008, that explains, for 

each of the safety rulemakings it must issue in response to 

SAFETEA–LU, how the agency has taken into account or is addressing the inter-related nature of real-world crashes that involve 

two or more of the safety standards the agency is required to issue 

or upgrade under SAFETEA–LU. In preparing this report, NHTSA 

should also evaluate the need for adopting safety standards for 

large passenger-carrying motor vehicles to prevent rollover crashes, 

as well as enhance passenger protection in all types of crashes to 

prevent severe injuries and deaths from collapsing roofs and passenger ejection from their seats and through motorcoach side windows. 

SAFETY ASSURANCE (ENFORCEMENT)

The Committee recommends $18,277,000, as requested, for safety 

assurance (enforcement) programs to provide support to ensure 

compliance with motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy 

standards, investigate safety-related motor vehicle defects, enforce 

federal odometer law, encourage enforcement of state odometer 

law, and conduct safety recalls when warranted. The Committee 

expects NHTSA to use these funds as reflected in its budget justification. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

NHTSA provides research, demonstrations, technical assistance, 

and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by 

state and local governments, the private sector, universities, reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
74 

search units, and various safety associations and organizations. 

These programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, state 

and community evaluation, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures. The Committee recommends $50,396,000 for these programs. 

Highway fatality rate goals.—Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans ages 3 to 33 and Congress has 

provided increased levels of highway safety funding over the last 

several years to address this tragic statistic. Although the rate of 

highway fatalities decreased significantly over the last 20 years, 

2005 marked the first increase in the highway fatality rate since 

1986, with alcohol-impaired driving accounting for a significant 

portion of the total fatalities. In 2005, 43,443 people died in motor 

vehicle crashes representing the highest number of fatalities since 

1990. Motorcycle deaths increased for the eighth year in a row to 

4,553, an increase of 115 percent since 1997. There also were increases in deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists and rollover 

deaths are now at a record high of 10,816 fatalities. Unfortunately, 

the Committee believes that NHTSA is not making adequate 

progress in addressing this public health crisis and should not be 

complacent and accept the fact that 43,000 lives a year are lost on 

the nation’s highways. 

The Committee is concerned about the fact that NHTSA has 

drastically changed or revised critical target goals that were set 

just a few years ago and which the agency now admits cannot be 

achieved. For instance, in the fiscal year 2008 budget, NHSTA sets 

a totally new method for measuring motorcycle fatality rate, using 

1,000 vehicle registrations instead of 100 million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT). NHTSA has also raised the overall highway fatality 

rate goal for fiscal year 2008 from 1.0 to 1.37, acknowledging that 

it will not achieve this goal by 2008 as was originally planned, and 

has pushed back its target of achieving a 1.0 fatality rate per 100 

MVMT to 2011. The actual fatality rate for 2005 is 1.45. 

The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008, 

that describes what efforts the agency will undertake to make a serious reduction in highway fatalities. The report should describe 

why the agency failed to achieve its original target goal for 2008 

of 1.0 fatalities, as well as specific recommendations focused on reducing motorcyclist fatalities. NHTSA also needs to explain the rationale behind changing these methods for measuring fatality 

rates. 

Impaired driving.—The Committee remains greatly concerned 

about the high number of alcohol-related fatalities that occur each 

year. In 2005, 17,525 individuals were killed in alcohol-related 

crashes and, based on partial year data for 2006, alcohol-related fatalities are projected to increase two percent to the highest level 

killed since 1992. The Committee continues to believe that a combination of tough laws, aggressive enforcement, increased deployment of interlock technologies and continuation of the national 

media campaign will save lives. In this regard, the Committee supVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
75 

ports 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 to eliminate alcohol impaired driving. 

The Committee encourages NHTSA’s involvement in the development of 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 expects 

NHTSA to provide periodic updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding NHTSA’s efforts to reduce the 

number of alcohol-related fatalities. 

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

The Committee recommends $68,834,000, which is $1,500,000 

above the request, for research and analysis activities to provide 

motor vehicle safety research and development in support of all 

NHTSA programs, including the collection and analysis of crash 

data to identify safety problems, develop alternative solutions, and 

assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness. Research will continue to 

concentrate on improving vehicle crashworthiness and crash avoidance, with emphasis on increasing safety belt use, decreasing alcohol involvement in crashes, decreasing the number of rollover 

crashes, improving vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, and improved data systems. 

Fatality analysis reporting system (FARS).—The Committee includes $7,922,000 for FARS, an increase of $750,000 above the 

budget request in order to improve the quality of the data collected 

by FARS. NHTSA is directed to utilize this increase to conduct 

quality control workshops and to establish quality control procedures to improve the reporting of restraint usage, blood alcohol 

concentration levels, fires, rollovers and other important data. 

National automotive sampling system (NASS).—The NASS general estimates system data identifies trends of vehicle crashes and 

the NASS crashworthiness data system provides more in-depth and 

descriptive data in order to quantify the relationships between the 

occupants and vehicles in the real-world crash environment. NASS 

was originally designed to have 75 crash investigation teams collect 

in-depth information on about 19,000 crashes each year. The Committee is concerned about the relatively low number of crash 

teams, 24, and cases being collected, about 4,800 annually, and 

therefore provides $12,980,000, an increase of $750,000 above the 

budget request, in order to increase the number of cases where 

data are collected. 

National motor vehicle crash causation survey (NMVCCS).—The 

Committee provides $7,000,000 for the NMVCCS, as requested. 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $673,000, as requested, for the general administration account to provide program evaluation, strategic planning, and economic analysis for agency programs. Objective quantitative information about NHTSA’s regulatory and highway safety programs is gathered to measure their effectiveness in 

achieving objectives. This activity also funds development of methods to estimate economic consequences of motor vehicle injuries in 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
76 

forms suitable for agency use in problem identification, regulatory 

analysis, priority setting, and policy analysis. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $125,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +125,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +125,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $125,000,000 for operations and research funding as an appropriation from the general 

fund. 

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................................... $228,982,430 1 ($228,982,430) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................................... 229,750,000 (229,750,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................................................ 107,750,000 (107,750,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .......................................................................... ¥121,232,430 (¥121,232,430) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ...................................................................... ¥122,000,000 (¥122,000,000) 

1 Includes transfer of funds from FHWA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of 

contract authorization of $107,750,000 for payment on obligations 

incurred in carrying out the provisions of the operations and research program. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent 

with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA– 

LU. 

The Committee recommends limiting obligations from the high- way trust fund to $107,750,000 for authorized activities associated 

with operations and research. 

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract author- ization 

Limitation on obli- gations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................................................... $4,000,000 ($4,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................................................... 4,000,000 (4,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................................................... 4,000,000 (4,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................................................. – – – (– – –) 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
77 

Liquidation of 

contract authorization 

Limitation on obligations 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .............................................................................. – – – (– – –) 

This account provides funding to implement and operate the national driver register’s problem driver pointer system and improve 

traffic safety by assisting state motor vehicle administrators in 

communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol 

or other drugs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a liquidation cash appropriation of 

$4,000,000 from the highway trust fund to pay obligations incurred 

in carrying out the national driver register program. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the amount of contract authority provided under SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee also recommends limiting obligations from the 

highway trust fund to $4,000,000 for operations and research activities associated with the national driver register, of which 

$2,870,000 is for program activities and $1,130,000 is for salaries 

and benefits. 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of 

contract author- ization 

Limitation on obli- gations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................................................... $587,750,000 ($587,750,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................................................... 599,250,000 (599,250,000) 

Recommended in the bill .................................................................................................... 599,250,000 (599,250,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................................................. +11,500,000 (+11,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .............................................................................. – – – (– – –) 

SAFETEA–LU reauthorized three state grant programs: highway 

safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and alcoholimpaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and authorized 

five additional state grant programs: safety belt performance 

grants, state traffic safety information systems improvement 

grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and child 

booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $599,250,000 in liquidating cash 

from the highway trust fund to pay the outstanding obligations of 

the various highway safety grant programs at the levels provided 

in this Act and prior appropriations Acts. The Committee’s recommendation is consistent with the amount of contract authority 

provided for highway traffic safety grant programs under 

SAFETEA–LU. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
78 

The Committee continues language limiting the obligations to be 

incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided limitations on obligations at the level prescribed in SAFETEA–LU, with separate 

obligation limitations for the following funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs ..................................................................... ($225,000,000) 

Occupant protection incentive grants .................................................. (25,000,000) 

Safety belt performance grants ............................................................ (124,500,000) 

State traffic safety information systems improvements ..................... (34,500,000) 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants ............. (131,000,000) 

High visibility enforcement program ................................................... (29,000,000) 

Motorcyclist safety ................................................................................. (6,000,000) 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants ............... (6,000,000) 

Bill language.—The bill maintains language that prohibits the 

use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs 

or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or structures. Language is also continued that limits the 

amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under section 

410 of title 23, U.S.C. The Committee continues bill language limiting the amount that can be used to conduct the evaluation of the 

high visibility enforcement program to $750,000 in fiscal year 2008. 

Highway safety grants.—SAFETEA–LU reauthorized the state 

and community highway safety formula grant program under section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to support state highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. A state may use these grants only for 

highway safety purposes and at least 40 percent of these funds are 

to be expended by political subdivisions of the state. 

Occupant protection incentive grants.—SAFETEA–LU amended 

section 405(a) of chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states 

to adopt and implement effective programs to reduce deaths and 

injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor 

vehicles. A state may use these grant funds only to implement and 

enforce occupant protection programs. 

Safety belt performance grants.—SAFETEA–LU established a 

new program of incentive grants under section 406 of title 23, 

U.S.C., to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in passenger motor vehicles. To date, 

a total of nine states have passed primary seat belt laws in response to this incentive program. A state may use these grant 

funds for any safety purpose under title 23, U.S.C., or for any 

project that corrects or improves a hazardous roadway location or 

feature or proactively addresses highway safety problems. However, at least $1,000,000 of amounts received by states must be obligated for behavioral highway safety activities. 

State traffic safety information systems improvements.— 

SAFETEA–LU established a new program of incentive grants 

under section 408 of title 23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt 

and implement effective programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of 

state data that is needed to identify priorities for national, state, 

and local highway and traffic safety programs; to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements; to link these 

state data systems, including traffic records, with other data systems within the state; and to improve the compatibility of the state 

data system with national data systems and data systems of other 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
79 

states to enhance the ability to observe and analyze national trends 

in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. A state 

may use these grant funds only to implement such data improvement programs. 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants.— SAFETEA–LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of title 

23, U.S.C., to encourage states to adopt and implement effective 

programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of alcohol. A state may use 

these grant funds to implement the impaired driving activities described in the programmatic criteria, as well as costs for high visibility enforcement; the costs of training and equipment for law enforcement; the costs of advertising and educational campaigns that 

publicize checkpoints, increase law enforcement efforts and target 

impaired drivers under 34 years of age; the costs of a state impaired operator information system, and the costs of vehicle or license plate impoundment. 

High visibility enforcement program.—Section 2009 of 

SAFETEA–LU establishes a new program to administer at least 

two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each 

year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce 

alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/ 

or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles. These funds may be used to pay for the development, production, and use of broadcast and print media in carrying out traffic 

safety law enforcement campaigns. The Committee continues to believe that the high visibility enforcement program has been effective in encouraging seat belt use and in discouraging impaired 

driving. The Committee directs NHTSA to continue to provide updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on 

the agency’s paid media strategy and its implementation. 

Motorcyclist safety.—Section 2010 of SAFETEA–LU established a 

new program of incentive grants to encourage states to adopt and 

implement effective programs to reduce the number of single and 

multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists. A state may use 

these grants funds only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs, including improvement of training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of motorcyclist 

safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach programs. 

Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants.—Section 2011 of SAFETEA–LU established a new incentive grant program to make grants available to states that are enforcing a law 

requiring any child riding in a passenger vehicle who is too large 

to be secured in a child safety seat to be secured in a child restraint that meets the requirements prescribed under section 3 of 

Anton’s Law (49 U.S.C. 30127 note; 116 Stat. 2772). These grants 

may be used only for child safety seat and child restraint programs. 

The Committee is disappointed that NHTSA failed to determine 

state eligibility in a timely fashion and, as a result, awarded less 

than half of the authorized funds for this program in fiscal year 

2006. The Committee encourages NHTSA to work aggressively to 

award available Section 2011 funds to all qualified states. 

Safe transport of Head Start children.—The Committee understands that NHTSA provided input into the regulations developed 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
80 

by the Department of Health and Human Services regarding the 

safe transportation of Head Start children. Since the issuance of 

the final regulations, some Head Start grantees have reported that 

their transportation costs have consumed as much as 20 percent of 

the Head Start budget. The Committee believes that the safe transport of these children is paramount. The Committee once again directs the Secretary of Transportation to work with the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to identify strategies to ensure the 

safe transport of children participating in a Head Start program. 

In addition, the Committee encourages NHTSA to explore the use 

of the child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants as 

a means of assistance for the transportation of Head Start children. 

Grant administrative expenses.—Section 2001(a)(11) of 

SAFETEA–LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses related to the administration of the grants programs and 

supports the national occupant protection user survey and highway 

safety research programs. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

funding for travel and related expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized from the highway trust 

fund for NHTSA’s operation and research activities that will not be 

available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for the national driver 

register that will not be available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized from the highway trust 

fund for NHTSA’s highway safety grant programs that will not be 

available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for 

planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe 

operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well 

as managing the high-speed ground transportation program. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs serving to rehabilitate and 

improve the railroad industry’s physical plant are also administered by FRA. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
81 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $150,271,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 148,472,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 148,472,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥1,799,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The safety and operations account provides support for FRA’s 

rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding 

also supports salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

A total of $148,472,000 is recommended for safety and operations, which is a $1,799,000 decrease below the fiscal year 2007 

enacted level and the same as the budget request. Of this amount, 

$12,268,890 is available until expended. The following adjustments 

have been made to the budget request: 

Reduce funding for NDGPS staff .......................................................... ¥$163,000 

Increase funding for regulatory studies ............................................... +163,000 

NDGPS staff reduction.—The Committee understands that the 

administration of the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning 

System (NDGPS) program has been transferred to the Research 

and Innovative Technology Administration. The Committee decreases the FRA’s safety and operations account by $163,000 to reflect the reduction in the one full-time equivalent employee dedicated to the NDGPS program. 

Regulatory studies.—The Committee disagrees with the FRA’s 

proposed reductions to the agency’s regulatory studies program. As 

the FRA continues to implement its National Rail Safety Action 

Plan, the Committee notes that the FRA plans to update and issue 

a number of safety rules. For example, FRA is completing a research effort which will be used to develop new federal design 

standards for hazardous materials tank cars and the agency is developing a proposed rule to facilitate the installation of electronically-controlled pneumatic brake systems that improve train control. The Committee provides an increase of $163,000 to supplement the FRA’s regulatory study efforts. 

Close call confidential reporting pilot program.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $2,000,000 as requested in the budget for 

the Close Call Confidential Reporting Pilot Program. This pilot is 

intended to provide an avenue for railroad employees to voluntarily 

and anonymously report ‘‘close call’’ incidents that could have resulted in an accident without fear of sanction or penalty from their 

employer or the federal government. The FRA intends to conduct 

this pilot at three sites in fiscal year 2008 and the request includes 

$1,200,000 for program implementation; $600,000 for program evaluation; and $200,000 for data collection. The Committee intends to 

monitor this pilot program closely to ensure that FRA’s traditional 

safety oversight and enforcement efforts are not compromised or diminished. 

Annualization of safety positions.—The Committee provides 

$889,000, as requested in the budget, to annualize the twelve new 

safety positions that were provided in fiscal year 2007. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
82 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $34,524,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 32,250,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 33,250,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥1,274,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +1,000,000 

The railroad research and development appropriation provides 

science and technology support for FRA’s rail safety rulemaking 

and enforcement efforts. The objective of this program is to reduce 

the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide 

technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. It also stimulates technological advances in conventional and 

high speed railroads. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,250,000, for 

railroad research and development which is $1,274,000 below the 

fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes the following allocation for FRA’s research programs: 

Railroad system issues .......................................................................... $3,168,000 

Human factors ....................................................................................... 3,616,000 

Rolling stock and components .............................................................. 2,871,000 

Track and structures ............................................................................. 3,861,000 

Track and train interaction .................................................................. 3,168,000 

Train control .......................................................................................... 6,100,000 

Grade crossings ...................................................................................... 2,178,000 

Hazmat transportation .......................................................................... 1,287,000 

Train occupant protection ..................................................................... 5,120,000 

R&D facilities and test equipment ....................................................... 1,881,000 

Train control.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$6,100,000 for the FRA’s train control program which is $1,800,000 

below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the 

budget request. The National Transportation Safety Board has had 

the implementation of positive train control (PTC) on its ‘‘Most 

Wanted List’’ since 1990. While there has been some measured 

progress in the development and implementation of PTC systems, 

the Committee notes that it could take several years before all rail 

lines are equipped with train control systems that can prevent 

train collisions. The Committee provides an increase above the 

budget request to enable the FRA to initiate a research effort to develop and demonstrate a lower cost train control system that can 

reduce or eliminate the possibility of train collisions on tracks not 

equipped with full PTC. In addition, the Committee encourages the 

FRA to initiate a research effort to assure that train control communications are not available to be interfered with or monitored by 

unauthorized persons. 

Highway crossing hazard elimination on designated high speed 

rail corridors.—The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA–LU) reauthorized the railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high speed 

rail corridors program under section 104(d) of title 23, United 

States Code. In fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA–LU authorizes 

$12,500,000 for this program of which $2,250,000 was designated 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
83 

for a specific project within SAFETEA–LU. A limited number of 

corridors are eligible for these funds. 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following 

projects: 

Leucadia boulevard, at-grade safety improvements, CA .................... $500,000 

Quiet zone at Union Pacific grade crossings, Round Rock, TX .......... 500,000 

Ventura county, Metrolink grade crossing improvements, CA .......... 500,000 

Gulf coast corridor grade crossing hazard elimination, MS and LA 500,000 

Grade crossing hazard elimination, Glendale, CA .............................. 500,000 

Southern California regional rail authority, San Fernando Valley, 

CA ........................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

Hopson road grade separation, Raleigh, NC ....................................... 500,000 

Klumac road grade crossing separation, Salisbury, NC ..................... 300,000 

Private crossing safety initiative, NC .................................................. 275,000 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Public Law 105–178 established the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan and loan guarantee program. 

SAFETEA–LU amended the program to allow direct loan and loan 

guarantees up to $35,000,000,000 and required that not less than 

$1,000,000,000 shall be reserved for projects primarily benefiting 

freight railroads other than class I carriers. The funding may be 

used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail 

equipment or facilities, including track, components of track, 

bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or 

(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

No Federal appropriation is required, since a non-Federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by 

the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. 

Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations 

and findings. The budget request proposed to limit direct loan obligations to $700,000,000 and indicated that the Administration intends to send up legislation to reform the RRIF program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not modify the loan limitations established 

for the railroad rehabilitation and improvement program, as proposed by the President’s budget. The Committee continues bill language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using federal funds for the payment of any 

credit premium amount during fiscal year 2008. The Committee 

understands that the RRIF program has been utilized to make improvements to a number of smaller railroads. In that regard, the 

Committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008 that 

summarizes the capital investment needs of class 2 and 3 railroads 

and the extent to which such needs are met by sources other than 

the federal government. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... ¥9,000,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +9,000,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
84 

The Committee recommendation does not include the $9,000,000 

rescission requested in the budget due to a lack of justification. 

RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 35,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +35,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +35,000,000 

Section 9002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Public 

Law 109–59) amends chapter 201 of title 49 of the United States 

Code to authorize funds for the purpose of funding a grant program 

to provide financial assistance for local rail line relocation and improvement projects. In order for a State to be eligible for a grant, 

the project must mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle flow, community quality of life, including noise 

mitigation or economic development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Rail lines that intersect communities across the country are often 

safety hazards and impediments to economic development. In addition, these rail lines can exacerbate congestion at highway-railroad 

grade crossings which, in turn, can contribute to increased levels 

of emissions of air pollutants by idling cars. Since the majority of 

our nation’s rail system was built nearly a century ago, it is often 

the case that the communities were built around the rail lines. As 

a result, the financial burden often falls to the State and local government if a community seeks to relocate a rail line in order to facilitate commerce or to address a safety concern. The Committee 

notes that the FRA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for the 

rail line relocation program in January, 2007, and the agency expects to publish a final rule on the program by the end of the year. 

The Committee recommendation includes $35,000,000 for the rail 

line relocation and improvement program. 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following 

projects: 

Mt. Vernon railroad cut, NY ................................................................. $250,000 

Peco Street grade crossing, Adams County, CO .................................. 200,000 

Pierre rail improvements, Pierre, SD .................................................. 200,000 

Rail safety upgrades, Coos County, NH .............................................. 400,000 

Rail line relocation, Chester, SC .......................................................... 400,000 

Railroad grade separation, Elkhart, IN ............................................... 450,000 

Railroad relocation planning, Terre Haute, IN ................................... 450,000 

Sacramento intermodal terminal facility track relocation, CA .......... 400,000 

Wisconsin west rail transit authority, Barron, WI ............................. 2,500,000 

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

The National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was created 

by the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91–518) in 1970 to preserve 

intercity passenger rail in the United States. At the time of Amtrak’s creation, private rail companies, which provided both freight 

and passenger rail, had been running large deficits on their pasVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
85 

senger routes for many years and wanted to shed this unprofitable 

part of the business. Amtrak was established as a non-governmental corporation and began passenger rail operations on May 1, 

1971. 

Amtrak currently serves more than 500 destinations in 46 states 

over 21,000 miles of track which is largely owned by the freight 

railroads. Amtrak owns about 625 miles of track, over half of which 

is on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from Washington, DC to Boston. Much like their passenger rail counterparts in the rest of the 

world, Amtrak has not been able to make a profit. Unlike their 

counterparts in Europe and Japan, Amtrak has suffered from a 

lack of national investment in rail infrastructure, including dedicated high speed rail lines and other infrastructure improvements. 

STATUS OF AMTRAK

Industrialized countries around the world have long recognized 

the importance of intercity rail to a balanced transportation program. The Committee believes investments in intercity passenger 

rail, especially in high density travel corridors, should be considered an integral part of our nation’s transportation policy. As stated in the beginning of this report, the United States is undergoing 

dramatic demographic changes that will make rail a more attractive travel alternative in a number of high density corridors that 

are between 100 and 500 miles in length. The challenges created 

by demographic shifts and population growth—congested highways 

and airspace, increased travel delays, and environmental degradation—could be mitigated by investments in rail. Amtrak, along 

with the federal and state government, will be important partners 

in the rejuvenation of the nation’s intercity rail system. 

In addition, the environmental benefits of rail are frequently 

overlooked. The 2006 Oakridge National Laboratory’s Transportation Energy book, published under the purview of the Department of Energy, reported Amtrak consumed 18 percent less energy 

per passenger mile than commercial aviation and 17 percent less 

than automobiles, which, in turn, lowers the production of greenhouse gases. 

The last authorization for Amtrak expired in 2002. In the absence of a new authorization, the Committee has continued bill language requiring Amtrak to undertake operational and management 

reforms to achieve greater efficiency. Additionally, the Committee 

continuies the requirement that Amtrak prepare an annual comprehensive business plan and submit monthly reports to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the execution of 

that business plan. Should an authorization bill for Amtrak become 

enacted into law, the Committee will evaluate the need to further 

modify the bill language as the appropriations process moves forward. The Committee, however, is encouraged by the progress that 

Amtrak has made on a number of fronts as a result of these reforms. 

Operational savings.—Amtrak has made noteworthy strides in 

restoring fiscal discipline to the railroad’s operations. For example, 

in fiscal year 2006, Amtrak achieved $61,300,000 in operational 

savings. To date, Amtrak has achieved $39,000,000 of the 

$61,000,000 in operational savings that the railroad committed to 

achieve in fiscal year 2007. Amtrak has also set a goal to achieve 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
86 

$82,000,000 in savings in fiscal year 2008. The majority of these 

savings will come from continued reductions in food and beverage 

service costs, improving the net operating performance of long distance trains, increasing revenues and other strategic reform initiatives. The Committee urges Amtrak to continue to make every effort to achieve operational savings that improve the railroad’s efficiency without compromising its commitment to safety and service. 

Reduced debt.—Since fiscal year 2002, Amtrak has reduced its corporate debt by $500,000,000 and has not assumed any new debt 

for four years in a row. However, despite this progress, Amtrak 

continues to carry nearly $4,000,000,000 in debt that resulted from 

the years when Amtrak took on large amounts of private debt financing in order to meet basic system needs. 

Record level ridership and revenues.—The Committee also notes 

that Amtrak experienced record ridership in fiscal year 2006, serving 24.3 million passengers and increased revenues to 

$1,371,000,000, 10.7 percent higher than the previous year. Amtrak’s financial performance led to a slight reduction in the amount 

requested for operating subsidies. 

Growing state commitment to rail passenger service.—Amtrak has 

also witnessed a significant increase in the resources that States 

across the nation are willing to commit toward rail passenger service. State investments in capital and operational improvements 

have grown from $148,300,000 to $254,800,000 or by 72 percent 

from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee applauds these positive developments, however, 

there is sufficient room for improvement. The Committee is greatly 

concerned about Amtrak’s on-time performance on its routes that 

operate over freight-owned rail lines. While the Acela service on 

the Northeast Corridor enjoyed an 85 percent on-time performance 

(which also needs improvement), system-wide on-time performance 

was only 68 percent. If Amtrak is unable to provide predictable and 

reliable service on its long distance and corridor routes including 

the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak will constantly struggle to attract 

and retain riders. The Committee expects the freight railroads 

which host Amtrak passenger trains to cooperate with Amtrak to 

improve on-time performance. 

In addition, while Amtrak has been able to make some headway 

on its backlog of state-of-good repair work, a significant portion of 

the railroad’s rolling stock ranges in age from 25 to 50 years old 

and is fast approaching the end of its useful life. The Committee 

believes that Amtrak must continue to make progress in replacing 

its aging equipment. Amtrak also has much work to do to ensure 

that its stations and facilities are compliant with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. The Committee acknowledges that the Federal Railroad Administration has not yet promulgated final rules 

on station platform accessibility requirements which will clearly 

impact the improvements that Amtrak will need to undertake. 

Finally, Amtrak’s labor workforce, representing nearly 16,000 

employees, has been without a bargaining agreement for nearly 

eight years and as a result, most of Amtrak’s employees have not 

seen an increase in wages other than an annual one percent cost 

of living adjustment. As a consequence, Amtrak’s wages, in many 

cases, are well below market and many of the Amtrak’s skilled 

workforce are compensated as much as 20 percent below the levels 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
87 

paid for comparable jobs on the freight railroads. This has an impact on Amtrak’s ability to preserve an experienced and skilled 

labor workforce. The Committee is dismayed that Amtrak may implement premium pay plans that include a 10 percent increase in 

salary for management, while at the same time most of Amtrak’s 

employees have been without a labor agreement and meaningful 

cost of living adjustments for eights years. While the Committee is 

encouraged that Amtrak’s management acknowledges the important role that the men and women of Amtrak’s workforce play in 

the railroad’s success, the Committee is frustrated that little 

progress has been made in the railroad’s current labor negotiation 

process which can hardly be characterized as good faith bargaining. 

The Committee expects both management and labor to work diligently toward an equitable and fair resolution. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The combination of continued reform and investment in infrastructure will improve the future viability of Amtrak. Accordingly, 

the Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 in total funding for 

Amtrak in fiscal year 2008 which is $106,450,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level and $600,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee provides Amtrak’s funding for operating 

grants and capital and debt service grants. The Committee continues many reporting and grant making provisions contained in 

prior appropriations Acts. 

OPERATING GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $490,050,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 475,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥15,050,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +475,000,000 

The Committee recommends $475,000,000 for operating grants 

for Amtrak which is $15,050,000 below the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

level and $475,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

is pleased that Amtrak has improved its financial performance 

which resulted in a considerable cash balance at the beginning of 

the last two fiscal years. 

The Committee understands that Amtrak provides a daily cash 

balance report to FRA and a monthly report that measures Amtrak’s actual revenues compared to the railroad’s projected revenues. The Committee expects FRA to carefully monitor Amtrak’s 

revenues and cash balances. The Committee directs FRA to immediately notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

if, at any time, Amtrak’s projected cash balance falls below an acceptable level. 

Since fiscal year 2006, the Committee has urged Amtrak to institute reforms to its food and beverage operations as well as its 

sleeper car service. The Committee understands that the food and 

beverage reforms are expected to yield nearly $19,000,000 in fiscal 

year 2007. However, the strategic initiative to improve the operating performance of the sleeper car service has been suspended. 

The Committee hopes that Amtrak will redouble its efforts in this 

area and urges Amtrak to continue to explore opportunities to 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
88 

achieve savings in the sleeper service with the eventual goal of 

subsidy elimination. In that regard, the Committee continues bill 

language directing the Inspector General to monitor Amtrak’s operational reform efforts and to report quarterly to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

In an ongoing effort to increase sustainable business practices, 

Amtrak is directed to report back to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment on current 

recycling efforts and the Corporation’s plans to improve recycling 

throughout its operations. 

In order to ensure adequate oversight of Amtrak’s business prac- tices, the Committee includes bill language providing $18,500,000 

for Amtrak’s office of Inspector General. 

CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $772,200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 500,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 925,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +152,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +425,000,000 

The Committee notes that the authors of the original Rail Passenger Service Act which created Amtrak in 1970, envisioned significant federal capital investments in high speed rail lines as well 

as other rail service improvements. The Committee believes that 

sustained investment in rail infrastructure is critical to the longterm viability of intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak has invested $1,360,000,000 in the Northeast Corridor 

since fiscal year 2003 and has replaced aging bridges, upgraded 

signal equipment, renewed catenary, and improved tunnels and 

track. Increased capital investments will increase capacity and ontime performance, reduce trip time, lower maintenance costs, and 

move the rail system toward a state of good repair. Accordingly, the Committee provides $925,000,000 for capital grants, of which $285,000,000 is provided for Amtrak’s debt service. 

The Committee recommendation is $152,800,000 above the fiscal 

year 2007 enacted level and $425,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee believes that the capital grants are essential 

if Amtrak is to continue improving its rail service and help move 

the system toward a state-of-good repair. The Committee recommendation sets aside $35,000,000 within the capital program to 

be made available for additional capital improvements if Amtrak 

demonstrates to the Secretary’s satisfaction that the railroad is 

meeting operational efficiency, revenue and ridership targets. The 

bill permits FRA to retain up to one-quarter of one percent for the 

oversight of Amtrak’s capital grants. In addition, the bill continues 

requirements that no capital funds may be used to subsidize operating losses or may be used for capital projects not on Amtrak’s 

business plan. The bill also sets aside $5,000,000 for the continued 

development of Amtrak’s cost accounting system and requires the 

DOT Inspector General to assess the strengths and weaknesses of 

the cost accounting system. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary to develop a definition of ‘‘state of good repair’’ in consultation with Amtrak and the affected Northeast Corridor states. The 

Committee understands that the Department of Transportation Inspector General plans to initiate a review of Amtrak’s five-year capVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.003 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
89 

ital plan. The Committee directs the Inspector General to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 

2008 the results of that review and to assess how effectively Amtrak prioritizes and coordinates its capital investments to contribute to the overall business goals of the corporation. 

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $31,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 300,000,000 

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

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥31,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥300,000,000 

The Committee notes that a significant portion of the bill language requested for the efficiency incentive grant program mirrors 

language that has already been included within the Operating 

Grants portion of the bill. The Committee agrees that Amtrak must 

continue to achieve operational savings and efficiencies. In that regard, the Committee has included bill language within the Capital 

and Debt Service Grants that sets aside $35,000,000 for capital improvements that is to be made available if the Secretary determines that Amtrak has achieved operational savings and has met 

ridership and revenue targets as defined in Amtrak’s fiscal year 

2008 business plan. 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... $100,000,000 

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

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +50,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥50,000,000 

The Committee supports the concept of a Federal-State intercity passenger rail grant program and provides $50,000,000 as an initial investment. The Committee recommendation is $50,000,000 

below the level requested in the budget. States along the Northeast 

Corridor, as well as Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington 

and others have already invested in their intercity rail corridors 

and improved rail service. The Committee applauds state investments in passenger rail and strongly believes that the federal government should be a partner in this effort just as it is in highway, 

transit and airport investments. This program matched dollar for 

dollar will leverage as much as $100,000,000 in additional rail investments. The goal of this program should be to increase the overall investment in state corridors not necessarily replace the resources that States are already committing to rail improvements. 

The Secretary has made congestion reduction a priority for the Department of Transportation and the Committee believes that a 

state rail corridor program that serves city-pairs between 100–500 

miles with sufficient frequency and reliability can make a positive 

contribution to reducing congestion. 

The bill allows States to apply to FRA for up to 50 percent of the 

cost of planning and capital investments to support improved intercity passenger rail service. In addition, priority for grants will be 

given to planning and infrastructure projects that improve safety, 

reliability and the on-time performance of intercity passenger 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
90 

trains; reduce congestion on freight railroads; and, work with the 

freight railroads to achieve an on-time performance of at least 80 

percent. The States must also commit financial resources to improve safety at highway-railroad grade crossings and to projects 

that protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation and improve quality of life. The bill also requires that 

projects must be on the Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Plan. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation Lifesaver. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

Authorization for programs under the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

(P.L. 109–59). Annual appropriations acts provide funding by annual limitations on obligations for the formula and bus grants only. 

FTA’s administrative expenses, research programs, and capital investment grants are provided through direct appropriations of 

budget authority from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $85,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 89,300,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 92,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +7,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +3,200,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $92,500,000 for FTA’s salaries and 

expenses, an increase of $7,500,000 above the fiscal year 2007 

funding level and $3,200,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation meets the funding guarantees for FTA’s 

administrative expenses as required by SAFETEA–LU. 

The Committee recommendation follows the funding structure 

that was provided in fiscal year 2007. Rather than appropriating 

specific amounts for each of the FTA’s programmatic offices, the 

Committee includes a single appropriation for the agency’s overall 

operations. The Committee acknowledges that the FTA is under 

new leadership and is satisfied that the agency does not intend to 

reorganize the operating functions of the FTA without proper conVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.004 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
91 

sultation of the Committee. However, in granting the FTA Administrator additional flexibility in the allocation of resources, the 

Committee expects the Administrator to use this discretion in a responsible and measured manner. In order to monitor the distribution of the FTA’s administrative expenses, the Committee directs 

that the FTA’s operating plan include a specific allocation of administrative expenses resources, including a delineation of full time 

equivalent employees, for the following offices: Office of the Administrator; Office of Administration; Office of Chief Counsel; Office of 

Communications and Congressional Affairs; Office of Program 

Management; Office of Budget and Policy; Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation; Office of Civil Rights; Office of Planning 

and Environment; and Regional Offices. In addition, the Committee 

directs the FTA to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations at least thirty days in advance of any change that results in an increase or decrease of more than five percent from the 

initial operating plan submitted to the Committees for fiscal year 

2008. The accompanying bill specifies that no more than $1,504,000 

shall be for the FTA’s travel expenses and that no more than 

$20,719,000 shall be for the central account. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to submit future 

budget justifications in a similar format to the fiscal year 2008 

budget materials, consistent with the instruction provided in House 

Report 109–153. With the companion new starts report, FTA has 

significantly improved the documents and information submitted to 

the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee has again included language requiring FTA to submit the annual new starts report with the initial submission of the budget request due in February, 2008. 

In addition, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General 

$2,000,000 from funds available for contract execution for costs associated with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed guideway systems. The Committee directs the Inspector General to continue such oversight activities in 

fiscal year 2008. 

Transit security.—The Committee reiterates its direction as stated in House Report 108–671 regarding transit security. The Committee’s position remains that the Department of Homeland Security is the lead agency on transportation security. As stated on the 

TSA website: ‘‘All new improvements will be coordinated with the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which has overall 

responsibility for transportation security among all modes of transportation, including rail and transit lines.’’ As such, the Committee 

continues bill language prohibiting FTA from creating a permanent 

office of transit security. 

Project oversight.—The Committee does not include bill language 

requested in the budget which would provide a one percent administrative takedown for the oversight of the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute program; the New Freedom program and National Research projects. Since the Committee provides sufficient funding to 

meet the administrative expense guarantees required under 

SAFETEA–LU, the Committee believes that FTA has adequate resources to conduct oversight of these programs. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
92 

Transit oriented development.—The Committee strongly supports 

efforts to increase transit oriented development (TOD) in public 

transportation corridors throughout the country. Transit oriented 

development has the potential to increase the quality of life for millions of American households by creating more densely populated 

livable communities near transit, recreational parks, and retail 

centers. The Committee believes that better access to transit can 

reduce transportation costs for working families and help mitigate 

the harmful effects of automobile travel on the environment. Despite the benefits of transit oriented development, the Committee 

is particularly concerned about housing affordability in TOD communities. The Committee believes that the preservation of affordable housing should become an integral part of transit oriented development policies. 

The Committee commends both the Federal Transit Administration and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

for jointly sponsoring the recently published study ‘‘Realizing the 

Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit.’’ The 

Committee believes the study provides a number of valuable recommendations for federal, state, and local policy makers to promote 

affordable housing near transit. On the federal level, the Committee hopes that the cooperation between FTA and HUD on the 

study will be the beginning of a new partnership on transit oriented development. Accordingly, the Committee includes 

$1,000,000 within the funds provided for the FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency working group on transit oriented development and affordable housing. The new working group should follow up on recommendations made in the jointly sponsored HUD 

and FTA study mentioned above. The working group should also 

create an action plan with specific recommendations on how HUD 

and the FTA can improve policy coordination and provide incentives through existing programs to further promote affordable 

housing near transit corridors. The HUD and FTA action plan for 

mixed income affordable housing near transit should be submitted 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six 

months of enactment. 

FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. $7,262,775,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 7,871,895,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,872,893,000 

Bill compared with: 

Obligation limitation, fiscal year 2007 ...................................... +610,118,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +998,000 

Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fall into the following categories: Alaska Railroad, clean fuels grant program, over-the-road 

bus accessibility program, urbanized area formula grants, bus and 

bus facility grants, fixed guideway modernization, planning proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.004 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
93 

grams (both metropolitan and statewide), formula grants for special needs for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, 

formula grants for other than urbanized areas, job access and reverse commute formula program, new freedom program, growing 

states and high density states formula, National Transit Database, 

alternatives analysis, and alternative transportation in parks and 

public lands. Contract authority from the Mass Transit Account of 

the Highway Trust Fund was provided under SAFETEA–LU. This 

appropriations Act provides the obligation limitation for such authority. This account is the only FTA account funded from the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The accompanying bill provides $7,872,893,000 in obligation limitations for transit formula and bus grants as authorized in 

SAFETEA–LU. The Committee recommendation represents an increase of $610,118,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and 

$998,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation does include a cancellation of $28,660,920 in unobligated prior 

year balances of grant funds. This rescission will not affect any ongoing or planned/authorized project or grant. 

Under the obligation limitation provided, SAFETEA–LU mandates funding levels for the following programs in fiscal year 2008: 

Clean Fuels Grant Program .................................................................. $49,000,000 

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program ........................................... 8,300,000 

Urban Area Formula Grants ................................................................ 3,910,843,000 

Bus and Bus Facility Grants ................................................................ 927,750,000 

Fixed Guideway Modernization ............................................................ 1,570,000,000 

Metropolitan Transportation Planning ................................................ 88,510,000 

Statewide Transportation Planning ..................................................... 18,490,000 

Special Needs for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities ...................................................................................................... 127,000,000 

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas ............................. 438,000,000 

Job Access and Reverse Commute Formula Program ........................ 156,000,000 

New Freedom Program ......................................................................... 87,500,000 

Growing States and High Density States Formula ............................ 438,000,000 

National Transit Database ................................................................... 3,500,000 

Alternatives Analysis Program ............................................................. 25,000,000 

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands ..................... 25,000,000 

In addition, SAFETEA–LU mandates $492,167,593 for 662 designated bus and clean fuel bus projects in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee has included an administrative provision, as proposed in the last two budget requests, which allows FTA to provide 

grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-installed 

or retrofitted hybrid electric bus system. This new authority, plus 

the $49,000,000 provided under SAFETEA–LU for the clean fuels 

grant program, is a good response to the direction in House Report 

109–307 encouraging FTA to provide more incentives for hybrid 

electric bus systems. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities projects: 

Ardmore transit center, Pennsylvania 

Attleboro Intermodal Mixed-Use Garage Facility, Massachusetts 

Binghamton Intermodal Terminal, Broome Country, New York 

Burbank Empire Area Transit Center, California 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
94 

Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania 

Denton Downtown multimodal transit facility, Texas 

Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots, California 

Glenmont Metrorail parking garage expansion, Maryland 

Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility, Washington 

Hampton Roads Transit New Maintenance Facilities, Virginia 

Howard County Transit repair Facility, Maryland 

Irvington Intermodal Upgrades, New York 

Jacobi Transportation Facility, New York 

Leesburg Train Depot Renovation and Restoration, Georgia 

Regional Transit Project for Quitman, Clay, Randolph and Stewart 

Counties, Georgia Renaissance Square, New York 

Rochester Central Bus Terminal, New York 

Springfield Union Station, Springfield, Massachusetts 

Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center, Washington, District of Columbia 

White Plains Downtown Circulator, New York 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the following 

bus and bus facility projects: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
95 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 026 HR238.033
96 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 027 HR238.034
97 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 028 HR238.035
98 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 029 HR238.036
99 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 030 HR238.037
100 

Job access and reverse commute program.—The Committee remains concerned that numerous cities and communities have been 

adversely impacted by the changes made in SAFETEA–LU to the 

Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. These 

changes have caused JARC funds to be allocated by formula, rather 

than targeted on low income and transit reliant communities. The 

Committee reiterates its direction to the Administrator to report to 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by May 4, 

2008 on the effects of this change on the ability of former recipients 

of JARC funds to meet the goals of the program. 

Alternatives analysis.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$25,000,000 for the alternatives analysis program. The Committee 

directs that funding be allocated for the following projects: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
101 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 031 HR238.038
102 

Clean fuel bus program.—The Committee recommendation includes $26,000,000 (section 165) to increase the FTA’s clean fuel 

bus program to a total funding level of $75,000,000. 

RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $61,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 61,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 65,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +4,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +4,500,000 

Grants for transit research are authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (Public Law 109–59) (SAFETEA–LU). Starting in fiscal year 

2006, activities formerly under the ‘‘Transit Planning and Research’’ account are now under the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account. The National Research program, the Transit Cooperative 

Research Program, and the National Institute are funded under 

this new heading. 

Funding for the National Research programs will be used to 

cover costs for FTA’s essential safety and security activities and 

transit safety data collection. Under the national component of the 

program, FTA is a catalyst in the research, development and deployment of transportation methods and technologies which address issues such as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, traffic congestion, and transit services and operational improvements. 

The University Research Centers program will provide continued 

support for research education and technology transfer activities 

aimed at addressing regional and national transportation problems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $65,500,000 for research activities 

of FTA, $4,500,000 above both the fiscal year 2007 enacted level 

and the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation fully 

funds the research activities of the FTA as required by SAFETEA– 

LU. Within the funds provided, the Committee’s recommendation 

includes $9,300,000 for transit cooperative research; $4,300,000 for 

the National Transit Institute; and $7,000,000 for the university 

centers program. Also included within this amount is $22,250,000 

for 24 specific research projects that were designated in the highway authorization bill (SAFETEA–LU). 

Consistent with the direction that was provided in fiscal year 

2007, the Committee requires FTA to report by May 18, 2008 on 

all FTA-sponsored research projects from fiscal year 2007 and 

2008. For each project, the report should include information on 

the National relevance of the research, relevance to the transit industry and community, expected final product and delivery date, 

sources of non-FTA funding committed to the project or research 

institute, and FTA funding history. 

The Committee directs funding to be allocated for the following 

projects: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
103 

American cities transportation institute, PA ................................... $300,000 

BuSolutions advanced transit research, MI ..................................... 700,000 

Community transportation association of America, nationwide 

joblinks ............................................................................................. 1,600,000 

East Tennessee hydrogen initiative, TN .......................................... 700,000 

Southern fuel cell coalition demonstration project, GA .................. 200,000 

Public transportation for the elderly.—The Committee notes that 

by 2030, 70 million Americans will be age 65 and over and will 

comprise 20 percent of the United States population. This is twice 

the number of elderly individuals from 2000. Mobility will become 

an increasing concern as our population ages over the next two decades. Given this demographic shift, the Committee believes that 

FTA should include the public transportation needs of an aging 

population into its long term strategic planning. Since the Committee has met the research funding guarantees required in 

SAFETEA–LU, the Committee directs FTA to utilize funding provided in this account to research and demonstrate effective solutions to increase mobility for older adults. In addition, FTA should 

identify proven strategies for providing coordinated transportation 

services for older adults that can be replicated by other communities. The Committee is hopeful that such research and planning 

in this area will result in strategies to help communities prepare 

for this changing population. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $1,566,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 1,399,818,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,700,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +134,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +300,182,000 

Grants for capital investment to rail or other fixed guideway 

transit systems are awarded to public bodies and agencies (transit 

authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies 

thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions 

of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more 

states; and certain public corporations, boards and commissions 

under state law. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109–59) 

(SAFETEA–LU) made two significant changes to the major capital 

investment grant program. First, the program is now funded entirely from the General Fund of the Treasury. Second, grants for 

bus and bus facilities and fixed guideway modernization projects, 

plus alternative analysis funds are now eligible under the ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ account, which is funded by the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Grants to the Denali Commission and the Hawaii and Alaska ferries are dictated by 

SAFETEA–LU. Other projects and investments are authorized by 

SAFETEA–LU and are subject to regulation and oversight by FTA. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,700,000,000 for capital investment grants, $300,182,000 above the budget request and 

$134,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Within the 

amount provided, the Committee includes a total of $17,000,000, or 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
104 

approximately one percent, for oversight activities of the investments in this account. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
105 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 032 HR238.039
106 

The Committee’s recommendation includes a rescission of 

$17,760,000 from this account. Funds for the rescission are to be 

derived from any project which still has not obligated appropriated 

funds after three years. 

The Committee directs FTA not to reallocate funds provided in 

the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2005, or previous Acts for the following new start projects: 

Canal Street Corridor, New Orleans, Louisiana 

Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project, Virginia 

Northstar Corridor Rail Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Northeast downtown corridor project, Indianapolis, Indiana 

Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, Santa Clara County, 

California 

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21, as amended, 

requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking sixty 

days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the 

Committee directs the FTA to include the following: (1) a copy of 

the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual 

federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total 

federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2007; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated 

FFGAs against the program authorization; (5) an evaluation of 

whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the 

project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance the project, which 

shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance 

plan; (7) the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; (8) the project’s operating plan, which enumerates the project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts; and 

(9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project. 

The Committee continues the direction to FTA to inform the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty 

days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any 

full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to changes 

shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding 

grant agreement, including any proposed change in rail car procurements. In addition, the Committee also directs FTA to continue 

reporting monthly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of each project with a full funding grant 

agreement or is within two years of a full funding grant agreement. 

The Committee finds the monthly updates informative and a useful 

oversight tool. 

Small starts projects.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$200,000,000 for the small starts program as authorized by 

SAFETEA–LU. The Committee includes funding for the following 

projects: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
107 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 033 HR238.040
108 

Criteria for new start and small start projects.—Prior to the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, new start projects had to complete alternatives analysis; preliminary engineering; local financial commitment to the project; and be justified by the FTA’s review of the 

project’s mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. With the passage of 

SAFETEA–LU, Congress added economic development and public 

transportation supportive land use policies to the required project 

justification criteria. SAFETEA–LU also created the small starts 

program which requires projects to be justified, in part, by a review 

of a project’s economic development impacts, land use policies, and 

cost effectiveness. The Committee believes that the addition of economic development and land use as criteria for the new starts and 

small starts programs was intentional and deliberate. The Committee is concerned that FTA is not adequately incorporating the 

economic development and land use criteria to both programs. Accordingly, the Committee directs FTA to modify the existing project 

evaluation process when evaluating, rating and recommending new 

starts and small starts projects to Congress for funding to include 

economic development and land use. For new starts, the revised 

project evaluation, rating and recommendation process should incorporate the six project justification factors through all phases of 

project development and advancement by utilizing a multiple-measure approach that does not base the project recommendation and 

funding decision on any single factor. 

Public-private partnership pilot program.—The Committee is 

aware that FTA, through its Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program, is examining whether innovated procurement methodologies 

can reduce and allocate risks associated with the construction of 

new fixed guideway projects. The Committee encourages FTA to explore developing innovative finance pilot projects that would leverage private sector investment, reduce the federal cost share for capital projects, and speed completion of new transit systems. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

funds not obligated by September 30, 2010 for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ and bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula 

and Bus Grants’’ to be available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 

5309. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 

Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

unobligated funds for projets under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ to 

be used in this fiscal year for activities eligible in the year the 

funds were appropriated. 

Section 164. The Committee includes a provision, as proposed in 

the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 budget requests, that allows FTA to 

provide grants for 100 percent of the net capital cost of a factoryinstalled or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
109 

Section 165. The Committee includes a provision to provide funds 

for the clean fuels program. 

Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which repeals 

a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a subway system 

in Los Angeles, CA. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $16,223,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 17,392,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,392,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +1,169,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Seaway) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the 

St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The Seaway is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the 

United States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located in 

Massena, New York and vessel traffic control in areas of the St. 

Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the Seaway is 

to serve the United States intermodal and international transportation system by improving the operation and maintenance of a 

safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and environmentally responsible 

deep-draft waterway. The Seaway’s major priorities include: safety, 

reliability, trade development, management accountability, and binational collaboration with its Canadian counterpart. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $17,392,000 

to fund the operations and maintenance of the corporation, which 

is $1,169,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same 

level requested in the fiscal year 2008 budget. Appropriations from 

the harbor maintenance trust fund and revenues from non-federal 

sources finance the operation and maintenance of the Seaway for 

which the corporation is responsible. The Committee was pleased 

the Administration did not request to institute tolls on the U.S. 

portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway as attempted in fiscal years 

2006 and 2007. 

The Committee looks forward to the release of the Great Lakes 

St. Lawrence Seaway Study, a binational study focused on the marine infrastructure needs of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway, 

to aid in planning and investing in the Seaway. The Committee 

recognizes the Seaway’s infrastructure is aging. The Committee 

further recognizes that efforts to modernize the Seaway will not 

only increase efficiency but improve the reliability of the Seaway’s 

operations. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is responsible for programs that strengthen the U.S. maritime industry in support of the 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
110 

Nation’s security and economic needs, as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United 

States merchant marine, sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and capable of serving as a naval and military 

auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD, working 

with the Department of Defense (DOD), helps provide a seamless, 

time-phased transition from peacetime to wartime operations, 

while balancing the defense and commercial elements of the maritime transportation system. MARAD also manages the maritime 

security program, the voluntary intermodal sealift agreement program and the ready reserve force, which assures DOD access to 

commercial and strategic sealift and associated intermodal capability. Further, MARAD’s education and training programs through 

the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and six state maritime schools 

help provide skilled U.S. merchant marine officers. 

MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $154,440,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 154,440,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 156,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +1,560,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +1,560,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $156,000,000 for the maritime security program (MSP), $1,560,000 above the budget request and the 

amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD and assumes that MARAD will 

continue to administer the program with support and consultation 

of the Department of Defense. The purpose of the MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag merchant fleet to serve the national 

security needs of the United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flag ship operators engaged in U.S.-foreign trade. 

Participating operators are required to keep the vessels in active 

commercial service and are required to provide intermodal sealift 

support to the Department of Defense in times of war or national 

emergency. The Committee’s recommendation provides funding for 

60 ships, at a payment per ship of $2,600,000. The recommendation 

will provide the necessary resources for the operation of the MSP 

through fiscal year 2008. Funds are available until expended. 

OPERATIONS AND TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $111,522,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 115,276,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 118,646,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +7,124,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +3,370,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $118,646,000 for operations and training, $3,370,000 above the budget request and $7,124,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
111 

above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. Funds provided for 

this account are to be distributed as follows: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Activity Fiscal year 

2008 request House recommended 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy: 

Salary and Benefits ............................................................................................ $24,720 $24,720 

Midshipmen Program .......................................................................................... 6,977 6,977 

Instructional Program ......................................................................................... 5,689 5,689 

Program Direction and Administration ............................................................... 2,916 2,916 

Maintenance, Repair, & Operating Requirements ............................................. 7,307 7,307 

Capital Improvements ........................................................................................ 13,850 14,139 

Subtotal, USMMA ....................................................................................... 61,458 61,747 

State Maritime Schools: 

Student Incentive Payments ............................................................................... 0 800 

Direct Payments .................................................................................................. 1,881 1,782 

Schoolship Maintenance and Repair .................................................................. 8,119 10,500 

Subtotal, State Maritime Academies ......................................................... 10,000 13,082 

MARAD Operations: 

Base Operations ................................................................................................. 33,612 33,612 

Information technology and electronic government ........................................... 8,113 8,113 

IT setaside .......................................................................................................... 98 98 

Delphi/Accounting ............................................................................................... 1,258 1,258 

GSA Space Increase ............................................................................................ 736 736 

Subtotal, MARAD Operations ..................................................................... 43,818 43,818 

Subtotal, Operations and Training ............................................................ 115,276 118,646 

Note.—Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

The Committee recommends $61,747,000 for the operation and 

maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), an 

increase of $289,000 over the budget request. Of the funds provided, the Committee recommends $24,720,000 for salaries and 

benefits, which is available until September 30, 2008, and 

$14,139,000 for capital improvements to the USMMA, which is 

available until expended. 

The Committee recommends $13,082,000 for the six state maritime schools (SMS), $3,082,000 above the budget request and 

$1,983,000 above the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007. In its 

budget request, MARAD proposed to sunset the student incentive 

payment (SIP) program and, in exchange, slightly increase direct 

payments to schools. As justification for the sunset, MARAD noted 

that the number of SIP participants entering into the program has 

continued to decrease in recent years. However, information from 

MARAD indicates the level of SIP participation has been relatively 

constant since 2003, and is expected to increase by 4 participants 

for a total level of 155 in fiscal year 2007. 

Therefore, the Committee provides $800,000 to continue and 

fully support the SIP program in fiscal year 2008. In addition, the 

Committee provides $1,782,000 in SMS direct payments, consistent 

with the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 level. The Committee requires 

MARAD to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations information on the SIP program, including the number of 

SIP participants, SIP graduates, and SIP participants that did not 

become SIP graduates per year for the last eight years as well as 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
112 

the Federal funding expended to support the program for each of 

those years. The Committee provides $10,500,000 for schoolship maintenance 

and repair, which is available until expended. The Committee notes 

that the budget proposal of $8,119,000 would keep the SIRIUS in 

a dormant state, unavailable for training purposes and unable to 

respond to disasters. MARAD’s congressional justification mentions 

that this funding level also may result in the lay-up of the ENTERPRISE. The Committee provides the increase of $2,389,000 to ensure all six training ships are in a state of good repair and available for training purposes, consistent with MARAD’s statutory obligations. The Committee recommends $43,818,000 for MARAD operations, 

the same as the budget request. Within this total, the Committee 

provides $8,113,000 for information technology (IT) related activities and electronic government. 

MARAD reorganization.—The Committee is dismayed that 

MARAD, in direct contradiction to the law, did not notify or brief 

the Committee on its planned reorganization. This is particularly 

disappointing since the reorganization, which entails not only headquarters level changes but also the creation of new field offices 

throughout the country, will significantly impact MARAD’s requests of this Committee. 

Further, MARAD provided the Committee with an overview, 

lacking substance, only after the reorganization was well underway 

(and, in fact, it may have been completed). However, to this day, 

the Committee has received little in the way of details, not even 

an organization chart, let alone any out-year cost of FTE estimate. 

Because this reorganization directly affects the work of this Committee and presumes an increase in appropriation level to fund its 

changes, the Committee directs MARAD to provide an adequate 

justification and prohibits MARAD from establishing any new offices before it briefs the Committee. 

General provisions.—The Committee notes that MARAD has not 

provided any justification for, nor has it addressed, the general or 

administrative provisions it proposes in the President’s budget. The 

Committee directs MARAD to justify each provision proposed in a 

section of its Congressional budget justification. 

SHIP DISPOSAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $20,790,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 20,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 17,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥3,790,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥3,000,000 

MARAD serves as the federal government’s disposal agent for 

government-owned merchant vessels weighing 1,500 gross tons or 

more. The ship disposal program provides resources to dispose of 

obsolete merchant-type vessels in the National Defense Reserve 

Fleet (NDRF). The Maritime Administration was required by Public Law 106–398 to dispose of its obsolete inventory by the end of 

2006. These vessels pose a significant environmental threat due to 

the presence of hazardous substances such as asbestos and solid 

and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The list includes a nuVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.005 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
113 

clear ship, the SAVANNAH, which contains remnants of a nuclear 

reactor. 

There are currently 119 obsolete vessels located in three fleet 

sites in the NDRF awaiting disposal. According to MARAD’s budget 

justification, MARAD removed 23 ships for disposal in 2006 and expected that it would remove another 18 in 2007 and 16 in 2008. 

MARAD expected that by the end of 2008, it would have removed 

all high priority ships and a significant number of moderate priority ships available for disposal. 

However, in a letter dated March 8, 2007, MARAD notified the 

Committee that it suspended the program on February 21, 2007 

due to environmental issues associated with hull cleaning. In 2006, 

the Coast Guard began requiring MARAD to remove marine 

growth from ship hulls before allowing vessels to be towed to a domestic recycling facility. As a result, MARAD cancelled two awards 

and did not award seven additional pending contracts in December 

2006. Although the moratorium no longer applies to vessels in Virginia, the dispute continues to impede the program in Texas and 

California. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for ship disposal, 

$3,000,000 below the budget request. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee recommends $4,704,000 to decommission the SAVANNAH. Funds are available until expended. Although the Committee fully supports this program, the funding reduction will not 

have a negative effect on the program as all funds available will 

likely not be able to be spent in fiscal year 2008. Not only is the 

program suspended in two of three states, $15,993,000 is available 

in fiscal year 2007 from carry-over funding, and another 

$20,790,000 was appropriated in the 2007 Act. Even if the environmental issues were solved immediately, MARAD is captive to limited capacity at domestic recycling facilities, which it must share 

with commercial and Navy ship recycling work. The Committee 

notes that MARAD has been working with the revelant agencies of 

jurisdiction in each of the affected states and is hopeful that a resolution can be reached. The Committee will reevaluate its decision 

as additional progress is made. 

MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $4,085,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 1 ..................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,408,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥677,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +3,408,000 1Does not include the $3,408,000 proposed by MARAD in redirected funds provided in section 112 of title 

I, Public Law 109–115. 

The maritime guaranteed loan account as provided for by title XI 

of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, provides for guaranteed loans 

for purchasers of ships from the U.S. shipbuilding industry and for 

modernization of U.S. shipyards. Funds for administrative expenses for the Title XI program are appropriated to this account, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
114 

and then transferred by reimbursement to operations and training 

to be obligated and outlayed. 

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantee 

commitments made in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of 

direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or 

commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of 

this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on a net present 

value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash 

basis. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee rejects the President’s proposal to transfer funding from funding contained in a prior appropriations Act, and instead recommends $3,408,000 in appropriated funds. 

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

(RESCISSION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................... $¥2,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥3,526,000 

Bill compared with: 

Rescission, fiscal year 2007 ........................................................ 1,526,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥3,526,000 

The Committee rescinds $3,526,000 from the ship construction 

account. This account is currently inactive except for determinations regarding the use of vessels built under the program, final 

settlement of open contracts, and closing of financial accounts. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... $5,650,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥5,650,000 

The Truman-Hobbs Act authorized the U.S. Coast Guard to alter 

bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation. The purpose of 

these alterations is to improve the safety of marine navigation 

under the bridge. Currently 15 bridges are eligible for funding 

under the Alteration of Bridges program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee rejects the President’s proposal to transfer the alteration of bridges program from the U.S. Coast Guard to MARAD 

on October 1, 2007. The Committee notes that it has not yet received a legislative proposal to effectuate this transfer. Further, the 

Committee does not agree with the Administration’s approach that 

altering obstructive highway bridges be funded from the highway 

trust fund especially since the Congressional Budget Office projects 

the trust fund will be insolvent in 2009. This funding approach was 

not included in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) or the Administration’s proposal on surface reauthorization. The purpose of 

altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
115 

under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the 

bridge itself. Since in some cases, unsafe conditions exist on the 

waterway beneath a bridge that has an adequate surface or structural condition, the highway trust fund is not appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. The Committee 

notes that the 2001 President’s budget attempted a similar approach, which the Committee rejected for these same reasons. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and rental payments 

shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

obligations incurred during the current year from construction 

funds in excess of the appropriations contained in this Act or in 

any prior appropriations Act. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), which was established as an administration within the 

Department of Transportation effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108–246), is responsible for the department’s pipeline safety program and oversight of hazardous materials transportation safety operations. As part of its mission, the 

agency is dedicated to safety by working toward the elimination of 

transportation-related deaths and injuries in hazardous materials 

and pipeline transportation, and by promoting transportation solutions that enhance communities and protect the natural environment. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $18,031,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 18,130,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 18,130,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +99,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

This appropriation finances the program support costs for the 

PHMSA. This includes policy development, counsel, budget, financial management, civil rights, management, administration and 

agency-wide expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $18,130,000 for these costs, of which 

$639,000 is to be provided from the Pipeline Safety Fund. The 

Committee expects PHMSA to use these funds as reflected in its 

budget justification. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
116 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $26,723,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 27,003,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 28,899,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +2,176,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +1,896,000 

The PHMSA oversees the safety of the more than 800,000 daily 

shipments of hazardous materials in the United States and uses 

risk management principles and security threat assessments to understand, communicate, and reduce dangers inherent in hazardous 

materials transportation. The agency formulates, issues and revises 

hazardous materials regulations which cover hazardous materials 

definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and 

carrier operations, training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $28,899,000 to continue the agency’s 

hazardous materials safety functions, $1,896,000 above the request 

and $2,176,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year 2007 level. 

Full-time equivalent staff years (FTE).—In fiscal year 2007, the 

Committee provided additional resources sufficient fund four new 

inspectors, as had been requested, to achieve a more effective level 

of inspections, address the need to investigate undeclared shipments, and improve cross-modal data sharing. This would increase 

the hazardous materials safety program to 156.5 FTE in fiscal year 

2008. However, the agency’s budget proposes to cut two FTE from 

this program with little or no justification despite the fact that the 

Committee has been very supportive of staffing increases in recent 

years. As such, the Committee includes $19,714,000 for the operating expenses of the hazardous materials safety programs, 

$247,000 above the request, which should be sufficient to fund 

156.5 FTE as previously approved by the Committee. 

Research, development, and other programs.—PHMSA’s fiscal 

year 2008 budget requests an additional $1,100,000 for a new hazardous materials intermodal portal. In order to offset the funding 

for this new initiative, as well as other mandatory increases for inflation, pay raises, and GSA rent, the budget makes significant 

cuts to other programs, including reducing contract programs by 

$852,000, research and development (R&D) activities by $338,000, 

and the hazardous materials registration program by $459,000. 

The Committee’s recommendation restores funding to these programs in order to maintain them at the fiscal year 2007 funding 

level and provides $9,185,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Hazardous materials information system ...................................... $1,855,000 

Research and analysis ...................................................................... 651,000 

Inspection and enforcement ............................................................. 232,000 

Rulemaking support ......................................................................... 463,000 

Training and outreach ..................................................................... 1,438,000 

Hazardous materials intermodal portal ......................................... 1,100,000 

Emergency preparedness ................................................................. 381,000 

Hazardous material registration program ..................................... 1,236,000 

R&D information systems ................................................................ 577,000 

R&D research and analysis ............................................................. 676,000 

R&D regulation compliance ............................................................. 576,000 

Total ........................................................................................... 9,185,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
117 

Hazardous materials intermodal portal.—The budget requests $1,100,000 to develop a single Department-wide data system that 

will integrate ‘‘stovepiped’’ data and help coordinate efforts to monitor the vast hazardous materials community to target poor performers and security threats. The total cost of the portal is 

$1,500,000, of which $400,000 is funded in the pipeline safety appropriation. The Committee approves this request. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline safety 

fund) 

(Oil spill liability trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ $60,065,000 $14,850,000 $74,915,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................. 55,770,000 18,810,000 74,580,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 60,065,000 18,810,000 78,875,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ....................................... – – – +3,960,000 +3,960,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .................................... +4,295,000 – – – +4,295,000 

PHMSA oversees the safety, security, and environmental protection of pipelines through analysis of data, damage prevention, education and training, enforcement of regulations and standards, research and development, grants for states pipeline safety programs, 

and emergency planning and response to accidents. The pipeline 

safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to 

protect the public against the risks to life and property in the 

transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $78,875,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal 

year 2008, which is $4,295,000 over the request and $3,960,000 

over the fiscal year 2007 level. The bill specifies that of the total 

appropriation, $18,810,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and $60,065,000 shall be from the pipeline safety 

fund. 

Investigator Positions.—The budget requests eight new investigator positions to enhance data collection, evaluate pipeline operator performance, design improvement programs, and, when necessary, respond to pipeline incidents. The Committee approves 

these positions and provides the associated half-year costs. 

In total, the Committee provides $31,342,000 for salaries and 

benefits, travel, and other operating expenses associated with the 

pipeline safety activities of the agency. 

Contract programs.—The Committee provides $17,050,000 for the 

contract programs associated with PHMSA’s pipeline safety operations, including $400,000 for the hazardous materials intermodal 

portal, and activities associated with implementing the Oil Pollution Act. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
118 

Research and development.—PHMSA’s budget proposes to reduce 

the agency’s investment in pipeline safety research and development by $5,343,000 to a meager $3,750,000 in fiscal year 2008. 

This represents almost a sixty percent reduction below the fiscal 

year 2007 level of $9,093,000. The budget notes that these funds 

are being redirected in order to provide additional funding for state 

grants as the agency tries to refocus its efforts to meet the mandates of the recently passed pipeline safety reauthorization, the 

Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act 

(PIPES Act) of 2006. However, the research and development activities of PHMSA are used to improve pipeline inspection technology and analysis tools to strengthen the industry’s ability to effectively manage pipeline integrity. Research also helps to improve 

the operators’ ability to prevent damage to pipelines, detect leaks, 

and develop stronger pipe materials. Therefore, the Committee restores some of the cuts to these programs and provides $7,425,000 

for these activities in fiscal year 2008. 

State one-call grants.—The Committee directs that no less than 

$1,043,000 of the funds provided shall be for state one-call grants, 

as requested. 

State pipeline safety grants.—In December 2006, Section 2(c) of 

the PIPES Act amended section 60107(a) of title 49, United States 

Code (U.S.C.), to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to pay 

for up to 80 percent of the cost of personnel, equipment, and other 

activities incurred by state pipeline agencies during the calendar 

year. The previous limit had been up to 50 percent. In fiscal year 

2006, PHMSA provided $18,320,730 for the gas and liquid state 

grant program, which was only 42 percent of the $43,551,854 requested by the states. PHMSA’s budget states that the agency’s 

goal is to increase the federal funding for these grants incrementally by 5 percent each year until the 80 percent cap is reached in 

order to encourage states to remain in the pipeline safety program. 

The Committee provides $20,000,000 for these pipeline safety 

grants in fiscal year 2008 to assist state pipeline agencies to increase inspection and enforcement activities, an increase of 

$1,503,000, or 8 percent, above the fiscal year 2007 level of 

$18,497,000. 

State damage prevention grants.—Section 60134 of title 49, 

U.S.C., establishes a new grant program to assist in improving the 

overall quality and effectiveness of damage prevention programs of 

the states. Since outside force damage is a leading cause of release 

incidents and is often in close proximity to populated areas, the 

Committee provides $1,515,000 for this grant program in fiscal 

year 2008 as requested. 

Technology development grants.—The budget requests $500,000 

to establish a grant program for the development of technologies to 

facilitate the prevention of pipeline damage caused by excavation 

activities. The Committee provides the funding for these grants as 

requested. 

Pipeline safety user fee allocation.—The pipeline safety program, 

including state grants, is largely funded through user fees on natural gas transmission pipelines, jurisdictional hazardous liquid 

pipelines, and liquefied natural gas terminal operators. Yet, the 

PIPES Act has increased the responsibilities for PHMSA and the 

states with respect to the safety of our nation’s pipelines. Given 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
119 

this change in scope of the pipeline safety program, the Committee 

directs PHMSA to review the user fee collection process to determine if it should be modified to more equitably allocate the cost of 

the pipeline safety program across the industry segments covered 

by federal and state oversight. PHMSA shall submit a report to 

both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2008, that summarizes: the agency’s statutory authority to 

revise the fee structure; its assessment of the current fee structure; 

and any recommendations for changes to the fee structure that 

should be considered as a result of the passage of the PIPES Act. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

(Emergency preparedness fund) 

(Emergency preparedness grant 

program) 

Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ $198,000 ($14,157,000) $14,355,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................. 188,000 (28,318,000) 28,506,000 

Recommended in the bill ......................................................... 188,000 (28,318,000) 28,506,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ....................................... ¥10,000 (+14,161,000) +14,151,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .................................... – – – – – – – – – 

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (HMTUSA) requires the PHMSA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) 

monitor public sector emergency response training and planning 

and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 

and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $188,000, the same amount as requested, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 

117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $28,318,000 for the emergency preparedness 

grant program. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

was established as an administration within the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) effective November 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement 

Act, Public Law 108–426. The mission of RITA is to provide strategic clarity to DOT’s multi-modal and intermodal research efforts, 

while coordinating the multifaceted research agenda of the department. 

RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the following research 

and development programs and activities: advancement and research and development of innovative technologies, including intelligent transportation systems; education and training in transportation and transportation-related fields, including the University 

Transportation Centers and the Transportation Safety Institute; 

and activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
120 

Also included within RITA is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which is funded from the Federal Highway Administration’s federal-aid highway account. BTS compiles, analyzes, and 

makes accessible information on the nation’s transportation systems; collects information on intermodal transportation and other 

areas as needed; and enhances the quality and effectiveness of the 

statistical programs of the DOT through research, the development 

of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data acquisition and use. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $7,736,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 12,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 12,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +4,264,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $12,000,000 to continue research and development activities in fiscal year 2008. This funding level is sufficient 

to fund 36 full-time equivalent staff years (FTE), an increase of 3 

FTE over the fiscal year 2007 level. 

Research Programs.—Within the fiscal year 2008 recommended 

funding level, the Committee provides $6,036,000 for RITA’s research, development, and technology (RD&T) programs as follows: 

Hydrogen fuels safety R&D .................................................................. $500,000 

RD&T coordination ................................................................................ 536,000 

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System ........................... 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends that the $6,036,000 provided for 

these RD&T programs be available until September 30, 2010. 

The bill also includes language that allows funds received from 

states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for training to be credited to 

this appropriation. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... ($27,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... (27,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (27,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Under the appropriation of the Federal Highway Administration, 

the bill provides $27,000,000 for BTS. In addition, BTS will receive 

a portion of the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) increase 

to the federal-aid highway program. The Committee limits BTS 

staff to 122 FTE in fiscal year 2008. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
121 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to 

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $64,043,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 66,400,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 66,400,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +2,357,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $66,400,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), consistent with the 

budget request. The Committee continues to value highly the work 

of the OIG in oversight of departmental programs and activities. 

In addition, the OIG will receive $6,874,000 from other agencies 

in this bill, as noted below: 

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 years in fiscal year 2008, for a decrease of 10 FTE from the 

fiscal year 2007 level. 

The Committee recognizes that the National Transportation 

Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–443) authorized the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit, at 

least annually, NTSB programs and expenditures, including information security. It also provided that the NTSB and OIG in the 

absense of a direct appropriation, enter into a reimbursable agreement for any NTSB-related audits or reviews performed by the 

OIG. 

On February 2, 2007, the OIG notified NTSB that it would continue to perform the annual audit of NTSB’s financial statements 

under the Chief Financial Officers Act, maintain the hotline, and 

conduct follow-up investigations on a cost reimbursement basis. 

OIG intends to enter into a reimbursable agreement with NTSB for 

costs associated with these activities (approximately $100,000). 

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General to 

continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends canVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.005 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
122 

cellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant, 

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is 

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by 

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) was created on January 

1, 1996, by Public Law 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). The ICCTA abolished 

the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain other provisions to the STB; and transferred certain motor carrier functions 

to the Federal Highway Administration (now under the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration). 

The STB is a three-member, bipartisan, independent adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT that is specifically 

responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and 

certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. The STB’s regulatory oversight of rail carriers encompasses 

the regulation of rates, mergers and acquisitions, construction, and 

abandonment of railroad lines, as well as the planning, analysis 

and policy development associated with these activities. The STB’s 

jurisdiction also includes certain regulation of the intercity bus industry and surface pipeline carriers as well as the rate regulation 

of water transportation in the non-contiguous domestic trade, 

household-good carriers, and collectively determined motor rates. 

The law empowers the STB through its exemption authority to 

promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis and 

continues intact the important rail reforms made by the Staggers 

Rail Act of 1980. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $26,324,500 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 1 ..................................................... 23,085,000 

Recommended in the bill 1 ................................................................. 26,495,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +170,500 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +3,410,000 

1 Assumes collection of $1,250,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected 

throughout the fiscal year. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $26,495,000, 

an increase of $3,410,000 above the budget request. Included in the 

recommendation is $1,250,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate 150 full-time equivalent staff years. 

The Committee’s recommendation funds the following increases 

above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level: 

Annualization of fiscal year 2007 pay raise ........................................ $106,000 

Fiscal year 2008 pay raise .................................................................... +330,000 

GSA rent increase at new facility ........................................................ +398,000 

Inflation .................................................................................................. +61,000 

Working capital fund increase .............................................................. +38,000 

Fiscal year 2008 equipment expenses (one-time) ................................ +133,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
123 

These increases are offset by a reduction of $892,000 for the onetime relocation expenses funded in fiscal year 2007. 

User fees.—Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 

grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee 

believes that $1,250,000 in user fees is reasonable. Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and 

credited. The Committee continues this language to simplify the 

tracking of the collections and provide the Board with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds. 

STB case report.—The Committee is aware of frustration over 

rail service and freight rail charges among rail customers, including electric utilities, rural electric cooperatives, paper companies, 

agricultural industries and local units of government. The Committee recognizes that the four major railroads now control more 

than 94 percent of the industry’s revenues and 90 percent of the 

rail track and that there are fewer options for shippers that rely 

on the nation’s major railroads for service. The Committee directs 

the STB to issue a report to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations by February 1, 2008, that shows the number of 

complaints that have been filed related to high rail charges and 

poor service since January 2005, the STB’s determinations in these 

cases, and the status and timing of decisions in any pending cases. 

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.—On December 12, 1997, 

the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, KS (Wichita/ 

Sedgwick) to toll the 18–month mitigation study pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated that at such time 

as the parties reach agreement or discontinue negotiations, the 

Board would take appropriate action. 

By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of the 

Board’s approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8, 

1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a condition 

to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the 

Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the 

Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate. 

Waste transfer and sorting facilities.—The Committee recognizes 

that a growing number of certain waste haulers and rail companies 

have sought to exploit a potential loophole in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act in order to construct and operate unregulated waste transfer and sorting facilities on railroad 

properties. The developers of these types of facilities are claiming 

that ICCTA grants federal preemption from local, state and certain 

federal regulations that protect the public interest with respect to 

solid waste. The Committee disagrees with this interpretation of 

ICCTA preemption since the operation of solid waste facilities is 

not integral to transportation by rail. The Committee urges the 

STB to expeditiously clarify that these types of facilities are indeed 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
124 

subject to the same local, state, and federal laws and regulations 

as other solid waste facilities. 

Retirement-eligible personnel.—The Committee notes that approximately 34 percent of the current Board staff are retirementeligible. The Committee encourages the Board to utilize the flexibility provided by the authorized 150 FTE cap, as well as other internal mechanisms, to manage the retirement bubble over the next 

few fiscal years in order to prevent a sudden and detrimental loss 

of personnel due to retirements. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, United 

State Code. 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources for expenses incurred for training may be credited 

to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for any grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 

days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 

funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced 

by the department or its modal administrations. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
125 

Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

Section 189. The Committee amends slightly a provision continued for years allowing amounts from improper payments to a third 

party contractor or contractor support that are lawfully recovered 

by the Department of Transportation to be available to cover expenses incurred in the recovery of such payments. 

Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass included in 

Public Law 102–143. 

Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway project 

included in section 378 of Public Law 106–346. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

SUSTAINABILITY IN HUD’S HOUSING PROGRAMS

The Committee held several hearings focused on the future direction of housing and transportation policy, and heard a consistent 

refrain that sustainability, both in the nation’s housing and transportation infrastructure, should be a key component in planning for 

the future. The Committee firmly believes that the federal government should be a leader in this area, and that a great deal of 

progress can be made through the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

According to HUD’s own figures, the Department assists more 

than 5 million renters and homeowners and spends about 10 percent of its total budget, approximately $4,000,000,000, in energy 

costs through its various housing programs. The Committee notes 

that HUD has made initial steps to improve energy efficiency in its 

programs, including the adoption of an Energy Action Plan in April 

2002. In addition, Section 154 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required HUD to implement an integrated energy strategy to improve awareness about energy saving technologies and provide limited incentives for energy efficiency. HUD has also signed a joint 

partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to promote energy efficiency in HUD’s affordable housing programs. 

The Committee strongly believes that increased energy efficiency 

in HUD programs is beneficial to the agency through lowered utility costs. Just as important, however, is the fact that decreased energy costs benefit lower income families and communities served by 

HUD’s programs. In fact, the population assisted through HUD 

programs can realize significant health, economic and environmental benefits from more sustainable approaches to affordable 

housing development. However, the Committee is concerned that 

HUD’s energy and environmental initiatives have been largely ineffective because they rely on voluntary actions and provide few incentives for compliance. For example, for the HOPE VI program, 

HUD currently awards just 1 point for Energy Star compliance out 

of a total of 125 points. Similar weak incentives are found in other 

HUD housing programs. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
126 

HUD should go beyond voluntary and limited incentives for energy efficiency and incorporate robust green building and rehabilitation standards into its housing programs. 

Preliminary studies of green affordable housing developments 

have found a 2 to 4 percent increase in the cost of construction. 

However, these same studies also report substantial energy and 

water utility savings for low-income families living in green affordable housing. A recent review found Green Communities homes 

were 30 percent more energy efficient than traditional homes and 

that the average household can save hundreds of dollars per year 

in decreased utility costs. Furthermore, during the Committee’s 

hearings on sustainable communities this year, a reputable green 

housing developer testified that it takes only 5 to 7 years to repay 

the increase in green construction costs through long-term operational savings. 

The Committee is convinced that the results of initiatives such 

as the Green Communities program and the U.S. Green Building 

Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

rating system are increasingly demonstrating that sustainable development can be achieved on a cost effective basis. The Committee 

notes that a number of states and cities have already incorporated 

green building criteria into their affordable housing programs. 

By including strong green building standards into HUD programs, such as HOPE VI, the Committee believes that HUD will 

be able to better promote sustainable communities and healthy living environments, as well as reduce utility costs for low-income 

families. 

Some programs already contain energy efficiency components, 

which should be utilized, and other programs could find ways to 

better incorporate green principles. For example, the HOME program statute authorizes funds for technical assistance and capacity 

development to improve the ability of grantees to incorporate energy efficiency into affordable housing (42 U.S.C. 12782). The Committee urges HUD to investigate the costs of requiring stronger environmental standards in HUD programs; the long-term operational savings to HUD that may result from sustainable capital 

investments in public housing; and how HUD can better incorporate energy efficiency measures and green building standards 

into all housing programs, including but not limited to the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, Section 202, Section 811 

and HOPE VI programs. 

COOPERATION BETWEEN HUD AND THE COMMITTEE

The Committee is disappointed that HUD has not been a more 

willing partner in responding to the requests of the Committee. 

The issues of low-income housing and community and urban development are not partisan ones, and the Committee expects HUD to 

work with the Committee in a manner that best reflects the gravity 

and importance of its mission. 

The Committee believes that HUD should be more forthcoming 

in the provision of information to the Committee, particularly as it 

relates to the actual funding needs of its programs. HUD either 

does not know, or has not been willing to share, the actual numbers and necessary funding needs with the Committee. If the Department does not know this information, it is a sad reflection on 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
127 

the agency. HUD should have a better grasp of its contracts and 

funding needs, particularly in the Project-Based Rental Assistance 

account. If HUD is simply disinclined to share the information, this 

unwillingness to be responsive to the Committee in the provision 

of housing and services for vulnerable populations is reprehensible. 

It is in the best interest of the Department, as well as the low- and 

moderate-income populations that it serves, to be straightforward 

about the funding levels necessary to sustain programs. The Committee questions the practice of citing executive privilege as a rationale for the withholding of requested budgetary information. Accurate information is crucial to the Committee’s ability to comprehensively consider HUD’s budgetary needs each year, and is in 

keeping with the Committee’s responsibility to evaluate the Administration’s budget request. 

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $15,927,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 16,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,330,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +403,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +330,000,000 

In fiscal year 2005, the Housing Certificate Fund was separated 

into two new accounts: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and 

Project-Based Rental Assistance. This account administers the tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance program otherwise known as 

the Housing Choice Voucher program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,330,000,000 for tenant-based 

rental assistance, an increase of $403,000,000 above the fiscal year 

2007 enacted level and $330,000,000 above the budget request for 

Section 8 vouchers. Consistent with the budget request, the Committee continues the advance of $4,193,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading for Section 8 programs to October 1, 

2008. The entire advance is limited to this account. 

Voucher Renewals.—The Committee is providing 

$14,744,506,000, which is an increase of $300,000,000 above the 

budget request for the renewal of tenant-based vouchers. The Department is instructed to monitor and report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter on the trends in 

Section 8 subsidies and to report on the required program alterations due to changes in rent or changes in tenant income. 

The fiscal year 2008 bill continues the ‘‘budget based’’ system of 

funding. However, the Committee recognizes that a fully ‘‘budget 

based’’ system leaves the Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with 

a single fixed amount for the calendar year and with the difficult 

task of maximizing the renewal of vouchers while operating under 

a complex regime of rules and requirements that do nothing to facilitate the process. Absent real reforms to the program to reduce 

costs and dramatic changes to the program’s implementation guidelines to reduce the administrative burden, the Committee directs 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
128 

the Department to take whatever regulatory and administrative actions it can to increase flexibility, reduce administrative burden 

and streamline program implementation. By January 1, 2008, the 

Committee directs the Department to provide a full report on the 

regulatory and administrative options available to the Department 

and those it has implemented. However, absent real programmatic 

and statutory reform these actions at best only function as stop gap 

measures. 

In the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution, Congress made 

a necessary change to the funding formula that governs the tenantbased rental assistance account. Instead of relying on data from 

May, June and July of 2004, the new formula is based on current 

leasing and cost data from the most recent twelve-month period, 

which was defined as January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. 

This adjustment is intended to capture the true needs of PHAs and 

encourages PHAs to use their undesignated fund balances for the 

purpose for which they were appropriated—serving low-income 

families and individuals. The Committee notes that the Administration proposed the same change for fiscal year 2009. The Committee has been deeply disappointed in the implementation of this 

formula change, especially in light of the fact that similar language 

had been proposed in the Senate appropriations bill for fiscal years 

2006 and 2007. The Department seemed unwilling to update its 

formula and was uncooperative in implementing this change. The 

Department is reminded that its mission is to serve as many lowincome families and individuals as efficientlty as possible and that 

it is a partner with the Committee in this effort. 

The Committee reminds HUD that the undesignated fund balances, or reserves, held by PHAs are funds meant to be used for 

the housing of low-income families and individuals. The Department is instructed to allow the PHAs to use these undesignated 

fund balances in administering their programs, and is not permitted to recapture or rescind these reserves for the Housing Certificate Fund rescission. 

Having changed the formula in the fiscal year 2007 joint funding 

resolution, and understanding that the new funding allocations 

were delayed due to the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations bill, the Committee believes it is important to give PHAs adequate time to transition to the new formula. Therefore, the Committee has based the fiscal year 2008 tenant-based rental assistance renewal formula on the amount PHAs actually received in fiscal year 2007. This ensures that PHAs will have the time and stability to transition effectively to the new formula, and will help to 

pinpoint the increase in utilization due to the new formula. 

In making the formula change, it became very clear that the Department must be more open about the Voucher Management System (VMS) data so that good policy and funding decisions can be 

made from actual leasing and cost data. The Department is therefore instructed to post current VMS data on its website on a quarterly basis. This shared information will spur innovation, will lead 

to better policy and funding decisions, and will encourage PHAs to 

increase utilization rates. The Committee notes that HUD is considering posting this information ahead of Congressional direction. 

The Committee continues and strengthens through bill language 

the direction to the Department to communicate to each PHA, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
129 

within 45 days of enactment, the fixed amount that will be made 

available to each PHA for calendar year 2008. The amount being 

provided in this account is the only source of Federal funds that 

may be used to renew tenant-based vouchers. The amounts appropriated here may not be augmented from any other source. 

The Committee agrees to the budget request that a portion of the 

contract renewal funds may be used for additional rental subsidy 

due to exigencies as determined by the Secretary and for the onetime funding of housing assistance payments resulting from the 

portability provisions of the housing choice voucher program. The 

Committee directs that housing assistance payments resulting from 

the portability provisions be the first priority in the use of these 

funds. 

Tenant protection.—The Committee provides $150,000,000 for 

tenant protection vouchers, the same as the amount enacted for fiscal year 2007 and as the budget request. As a result of the variable 

nature of this activity from year to year, language is included allowing the Department to use carryover and recaptures of unexpended Section 8 balances to fund additional rental assistance costs 

in addition to funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008. These additional rental assistance costs are limited to housing assistance payments and administrative fees not to exceed the rate of administrative fees provided for contract renewals. The Department is advised 

against instructing PHAs to fund initial Tenant Protection Vouchers for less than twelve calendar months or funding these vouchers 

from the renewal account. The Department is instructed to report 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 

1, 2008 on the number of Tenant Protection Vouchers in use. Further, the Committee instructs HUD to issue Tenant Protection 

Vouchers for all units lost from the affordable stock, not only those 

under lease. The need for affordable housing units is great and the 

Committee is disappointed that HUD would advise the further 

diminution of much-needed housing units. 

Incremental Vouchers.—For the first time in five years, the Committee includes funding for incremental vouchers, specifically targeted to the non-elderly disabled population and homeless veterans. The Committee provides $30,000,000 for these vouchers, understanding that the need for vouchers by these and other populations remains great. Of the incremental vouchers provided, one 

thousand vouchers are to be provided for homeless veterans, in accordance with the HUD–VASH program. The Committee is dedicated to using its resources to fund current vouchers effectively and 

efficiently, while providing new vouchers for qualified populations. 

Administrative Fees.—The Committee recommends 

$1,351,000,000 for allocation to the PHAs to conduct activities associated with placing and maintaining individuals under Section 8 

assistance. This amount is $62,900,000 above the enacted level for 

2007 and the same as the level proposed in the budget request. In 

addition, the Committee agrees with the Administration’s request 

to fund administrative fees based on the number of units leased. 

This adjustment will incentivize PHAs to serve more families and 

individuals and will lead to increased utilization of vouchers, a key 

goal for the Committee. 

Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators (FSS).—The Committee includes $48,000,000 for FSS coordinators, the same amount as reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.005 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
130 

quested by the budget and $500,000 more than the level enacted 

for 2007. Coordinators help residents link up with important services in the community to speed the achievement of self-sufficiency. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of this activity and encourages HUD to work with PHAs to efficiently and effectively utilize these resources. 

Working Capital Fund.—The Committee provides the requested amount of $6,494,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue to collect and 

use Form HUD–0952681 for PHAs administering the Housing 

Choice Voucher program. 

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ..................................................... ¥$1,650,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................... ¥1,300,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... ¥1,300,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .............................................. +350,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................ – – – 

The Housing Certificate Fund, until fiscal year 2005, provided 

funding for both the project-based and tenant-based components of 

the Section 8 program. Project-based Rental Assistance and Tenant-based Rental Assistance are now separately funded accounts. 

The Housing Certificate Fund retains balances from previous years’ 

appropriations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,300,000,000 from 

the Housing Certificate Fund from the Section 8 tenant-based and 

project-based rental assistance programs as proposed in the budget 

request. The Committee instructs the Department to treat undesignated fund balances held by the public housing authorities, however, as funds that belong to the public housing authorities and 

may not be rescinded. 

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $2,438,964,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 2,024,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,438,964,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +414,964,000 

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 

housing capital programs, including public housing development 

and modernization. Examples of capital modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total funding level of 

$2,438,964,000, the same as the level provided in fiscal year 2007 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
131 

and an increase of $414,964,000 above the budget request. Within 

the amounts provided the committee directs that: 

—$17,000,000 is made available for Emergency Capital needs; 

the Committee continues last year’s language to ensure that funds 

are used only for repairs needed due to an unforeseen and unanticipated emergency event or natural disaster that occurs during 

fiscal year 2008; 

—$38,000,000 is directed to the Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services; the Committee recognizes the importance of this 

program, which assists public housing residents in achieving selfsufficiency. The Committee is concerned about the large unexpended balance in this account and the fact that HUD denied funding to a large majority of the applications due to technical issues 

that agencies should have been allowed to correct. The Committee 

directs HUD to issue a timely Notice of Funding Availability for 

these funds and to report by March 1, 2008 on the number of applicants for these funds, the grants awarded, and the Department’s 

plan for expending the remaining balances in this program. 

—No more than $15,345,000 is directed to support the ongoing 

Public Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the 

Real Estate Assessment Center; 

—$10,890,000 is for Technical Assistance. The Department is expected to cover the costs of the fair market rents (FMR) surveys 

from funds remaining available in this account; 

—$8,820,000 is directed to the support of administrative and judicial receiverships; the Committee is concerned about the length 

of time that several PHAs have been in receivership, with little 

proven improvement. While the Committee recognizes that it is a 

complex process to remediate the problems at these agencies, the 

Committee is troubled that agencies have been in receivership for 

as long as 22 years and that some cycle in and out without improvement. The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee by January 1, 2008 the status of all PHAs in receivership 

and the technical assistance provided, as well as the demonstrated 

achievements by each PHA; and 

—Up to $10,000,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund to 

support the development of and modifications to, information technology systems which support Public and Indian Housing (PIH) 

programs. This reflects the Committee’s continued concern that investments must be made to correct deficiencies in PIH information 

technology systems to improve PIH’s ability to conduct appropriate 

financial and management oversight of its programs. 

As requested, the recommendation does not designate a separate 

set-aside for the Neighborhood Networks grants because such activities are already an eligible use of capital funds. 

The Department is directed to continue to provide quarterly detailed reports on those Public Housing Authorities with obligation 

rates of less than 90 percent. 

The Committee recognizes that the capital fund needs are great, 

and fully believes that investments made to the valuable asset of 

public housing should be made in a sustainable manner. The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations methods for improving sustainable rehabilitation 

and building practices in the capital fund account. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
132 

HOUSING OPERATING FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $3,864,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 4,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,200,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +336,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +200,000,000 

The Public Housing Operating Fund subsidizes the costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This subsidy 

supplements funding received by public housing authorities (PHA) 

from tenant rent contributions and other income. In accordance 

with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula to public housing authorities for 

the following purposes: utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including the costs of providing adequate security; routine 

maintenance cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 for the Federal 

share of PHA operating expenses. This amount is $336,000,000 

above the enacted level for fiscal year 2007 and is $200,000,000 

above the budget request. The Committee does not include funds 

to be used for the ‘‘Housing Self-Sufficiency Award.’’ The Committee does not provide funding for the Asset-Based Management 

Transition Fund, as the Committee does not believe it should fund 

HUD’s transition to asset management when the PHAs making the 

transition are getting no such assistance from HUD. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about the implementation of 

asset management for public housing. While most parties agree 

that asset management is a worthy endeavor that can be beneficial 

to public housing in the long run, HUD’s overly restrictive implementation of this new system contradicts the stated goals of asset 

management. In particular, there are concerns about the potential 

negative consequences of the guidance HUD has issued given the 

regulatory and funding differences between public housing and private housing. The conversion to asset-based management has led 

to new regulatory restrictions on public housing that the public 

housing industry claims will lessen the quality of the housing and 

services provided to the tenants. The most contentious of these new 

restrictions are HUD-imposed management and related fees, which 

can limit the flexibility of an agency in managing its portfolio of 

housing projects. The Committee is concerned about the impact of 

these new rules on the over one million families living in public 

housing. The Final Rule requires HUD to convene a meeting in 

2009 in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 

Final Rule states that this meeting will ‘‘review the methodology 

to evaluate’’ public housing Property Expense Levels ‘‘based on actual cost data.’’ The Committee believes that this meeting is an excellent opportunity to address the related methodological issue of 

management fees. Because it is crucial to the success of asset management that management fees for PHAs be set at appropriate levVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.005 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
133 

els, the Committee directs HUD to include the topic of management fees in the meeting required by the Final Rule in 2009. 

In addition, the Committee is aware that HUD is undertaking an 

administrative reform initiative to examine and possibly revise regulations and guidance related to public housing. This initiative will 

be particularly important as it coincides with the implementation 

of asset management. The Committee supports this initiative and 

encourages the Department to solicit input from a variety of stakeholders in this critical effort. 

The Committee instructs the HUD Inspector General to investigate the implementation of asset management, especially the 

issue of management fees, and to report its findings to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2008. 

The Committee also continues a provision, carried in prior years, 

prohibiting funds from being used for section 9(k) activities. 

The Committee is concerned about reports that some 

Public Housing Authorities are requiring residents to 

declaw their pet cats, although HUD regulations do not 

contain such a requirement. Declawing is a painful procedure for pets which is almost never medically or behaviorally necessary. The Committee urges HUD to notify all 

PHAs that declawing is not required in public housing 

under HUD policy. The Committee further encourages 

HUD to consider adding an additional provision to section 

960.707(c) of HUD’s regulations (24 C.F.R. 960.707(c)) that 

would prohibit PHAs from requiring declawing. 

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING

(HOPE VI) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $99,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... ¥99,000,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +21,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +219,000,000 

The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods adversely 

impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public housing 

projects. In addition to developing and constructing new affordable 

housing, the program provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the facility. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee rejects the budget request for no new funding for 

HUD’s Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program (HOPE VI) and provides $120,000,000 for the HOPE VI program for fiscal year 2008, $21,000,000 above last year’s enacted 

level and $219,000,000 above the budget request. Language proposed to rescind funds appropriated for fiscal year 2007 is not included. 

The HOPE VI program grew out of the findings and recommendations made by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. In 1992, the Commission reported that 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
134 

many public housing developments were plagued by crime, limited 

neighborhood employment opportunities, crumbling and unsafe 

physical infrastructure, and federal programs that did little to help 

residents. 

In response to the Commission’s report, the HOPE VI program 

(also known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration program 

from 1993 to 1998) was created in fiscal year 1993 to revitalize severely distressed public housing developments and improve the 

quality of life for public housing residents. HOPE VI program 

funds are used to leverage outside investment and replace severely 

distressed public housing with new mixed income developments, revitalize and improve surrounding neighborhoods, reduce poverty, 

and provide community and support services for public housing 

residents. 

Since its inception, $5,830,000,000 in HOPE VI revitalization 

grants have been awarded to public housing authorities (PHAs). 

According to an analysis of HUD data by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), from inception to June 2004, HOPE VI grantees planned to demolish 134,572 units of public housing, and rebuild or renovate 94,725 units of new housing. 

The Committee strongly supports continued funding for the 

HOPE VI program. The Committee believes that the federal government should continue to demolish severely distressed public 

housing that is unsafe and often uninhabitable and replace it with 

affordable housing units through the assistance of programs like 

HOPE VI. 

Completed HOPE VI projects have been credited with helping 

transform and revitalize communities across the United States. 

Studies have linked HOPE VI communities with improved living 

environments for residents, reduced crime, and better employment 

opportunities. 

The Committee remains concerned, however, about the slow expenditure of HOPE VI funds, especially among some of the earliest 

grantees, and insists that HUD take a much more proactive role 

in ensuring that HOPE VI funds are obligated and that projects 

are completed in a timely fashion. In that regard, the Committee 

strongly believes that HUD bears a significant responsibility to facilitate these projects to their successful completion. HUD’s role 

does not end with the selection of HOPE VI grantees. 

The Committee notes that under the HOPE VI authorizing law, 

the Secretary may use up to 2 percent of appropriated funds for 

technical assistance or contract expertise. The Committee disagrees 

with HUD’s decision to eliminate technical assistance to most 

HOPE VI grantees, except in cases where the grantee is at-risk. 

For example, HUD previously assigned each new grantee a private 

sector expert in finance and real estate development, but stopped 

this practice in fiscal year 2001. The Committee believes that technical assistance can be an immensely valuable tool to help smaller 

communities around the country manage their HOPE VI projects. 

HUD should actively help HOPE VI grantees succeed by providing 

proactive technical assistance before they become at-risk. 

The Committee expects HUD to be a better partner in helping 

communities rehabilitate and revitalize their distressed public 

housing and directs HUD to issue its fiscal year 2008 HOPE VI Notice of Funding Availability within 60 days of enactment and to 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
135 

provide adequate technical assistance, both for new grantees and 

for previous awardees whose projects are not yet completed, particularly those awarded before 2001. The Committee also directs 

HUD to report back to the Congress by February 15, 2008 on the 

status and living arrangements for displaced residents of public 

housing units involved in HOPE VI projects, and the number of 

HOPE VI projects located within a half mile of public transit. 

Further, as one of the most innovative programs in HUD, the 

Committee believes that the large scale, catalytic redevelopment 

that the HOPE VI Program makes possible is especially well suited 

for a broad approach to green building, which includes smart site 

planning near public transportation and retail centers, water conservation, energy efficiency, and the use of environmentally beneficial building materials. Accordingly, the Committee strongly encourages HUD to require new HOPE VI affordable housing projects 

to meet Green Communities or the LEED for Homes building 

standards. Both Green Communities and the LEED rating system 

are nationally recognized standards for green building. The criteria 

were developed by leading experts in building design and construction, public health, smart growth and environmental protection. 

Both Green Communities and LEED for Homes also provide strong 

incentives to locate affordable housing close to public transportation, which is a priority for the Committee. 

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $623,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 626,965,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 626,965,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +3,265,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 

funds to Indian tribes and their Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) to address housing needs within their communities. 

The block grant is designed to fund TDHE operating requirements 

and capital needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $626,965,000 for the Native American Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block 

Grant Fund. This is the same as the budget request and $3,265,000 

more than the enacted amount in fiscal year 2007. 

In 2003, when HUD began using the new 2000 Census data, 

HUD shifted the basis for the needs portion of the formula distribution of funds from single-race to multi-race. The Committee 

continues language from last year instructing HUD to distribute 

funds on the basis of single race or multi race data, which ever is 

the higher amount for each recipient. 

Recognizing that the shift to multi-race data has adversely impacted many Native American tribes, the Committee directs GAO 

to conduct a study to analyze the impact of these funding changes 

and report its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 14, 2008. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
136 

Of the amounts made available under this heading: 

—$1,831,000 is included for Section 601 loan guarantees. 

However, the Department is advised that loan level activity 

must be monitored to ensure that sufficient grant funds are 

available as collateral for new loans; 

—$3,465,000 is for Technical Assistance training and associated travel; and 

—$148,500 is transferred to the Department Salary and Expenses account. 

The Committee is concerned about HUD’s slow expenditure of 

Technical Assistance grants in this account and directs HUD to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

February 1, 2008 its plans for providing technical assistance to the 

Indian tribes and the Tribally Designated Housing Entities. It is 

clear to the Committee that HUD has not made a serious effort to 

build tribal capacity and technical expertise to carry out affordable 

housing programs. HUD should be far more proactive in working 

with the Indian communities to address their needs and is directed 

to prepare a report to Congress on this issue by March 15, 2008. 

Additionally, the Committee expects the Department to continue 

to provide resources to the National American Indian Housing 

Council, if authorized. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $8,727,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 5,940,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,727,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +2,787,000 

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 

grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands for housing and housing related assistance to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low income Native 

Hawaiian families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $8,727,000 for this program, the 

same as the amount provided in fiscal year 2007, and $2,787,000 

above the budget request. Of the amounts provided, $299,211 is for 

technical assistance. 

The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditures in formula grants and directs HUD to award these funds in a more efficient, effective manner. The Committee directs HUD to submit a 

letter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

February 1, 2008 on the status of grants expended in this account. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
137 

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $6,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 7,450,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 7,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +1,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

Limitation on direct loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $251,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 367,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 367,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +116,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................

Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 

to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 

access to sources of private financing for Indian families and Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire financing 

because of the unique legal status of Indian trust land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new homes or to purchase 

existing properties on reservations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,450,000 in new credit subsidy for 

the Section 184 loan guarantee program, $1,450,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the program of loan guarantees 

for the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of single-family 

homes on trust or restricted lands. Of the amounts made available, 

$248,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses. 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $891,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 1,044,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,044,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +153,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

Limitation on direct Loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $35,714,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 41,504,255 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 41,504,255 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +5,790,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 

the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 

provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and their 

families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of 

Hawaiian Affairs, and private, nonprofit organizations experienced 

in the planning and in the development of affordable housing for 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
138 

Native Hawaiians for the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home Lands. This program provides access to private sources of financing that would 

otherwise not be available because of the unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,044,000 for this program, the 

same amount as requested and $153,000 above fiscal year 2007 to 

guarantee a total loan volume of $41,504,255, the full amount requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to Salaries and 

Expenses for administrative expenses. 

The Committee is concerned about the slow expenditure of credit 

subsidy in this account. In this regard, the Committee directs the 

Department to submit a plan to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations by February 1, 2008 that details HUD’s plan to 

increase the efficiency and utilization of this program. 

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $286,110,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 300,100,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 300,100,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +13,990,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their 

families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by formula to 

qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported to the Centers for 

Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of funding is distributed 

through a national competition. Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2007, the Committee recommends $300,100,000, 

an increase of $13,990,000 over the enacted levels for fiscal year 

2007, and the same as the budget request. Within the total amount 

provided, $1,485,000 is for technical assistance, training and oversight as requested and $1,485,000 is transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund. Within the funds provided, the Department should 

continue to give priority to creating new housing opportunities for 

persons with AIDS. 

The Committee continues language which requires the Secretary 

to renew expiring permanent supportive housing contracts previously funded under the national competition, which meet all program requirements, before awarding new competitive grants. 

Since the Committee has not received information on HUD’s proposal to change the funding formula for the HOPWA program, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
139 

HUD is directed to continue to use the current formula in awarding 

grants. While the Committee recognizes the value in evaluating a 

formula that is twenty years old, this is an issue best determined 

with input from a variety of stakeholders, and should not be undertaken in a budget request. 

RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $16,830,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,830,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +16,830,000 

This account provides funding to rural non-profit organizations, 

community development corporations, Indian tribes, State housing 

finance agencies, State economic development and Federally recognized community development agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,830,000 for the Rural Housing 

and Economic Development account, the same as the enacted level 

for fiscal year 2007 and $16,830,000 above the budget request. The 

Committee does not agree that the activities of this account are 

best performed through the Community Development Block Grant 

or the HOME programs. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $3,771,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 3,036,570,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,180,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +408,100,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +1,143,430,000 

The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 

and local governments, and to other entities that carry out community and economic development activities under various programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $4,180,000,000 for the 

Community Development Fund account, an increase of 

$408,100,000 from the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and an 

increase of $1,143,430,000 above the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

Of the amounts made available: 

—$3,929,300,000 is for the formula grants and the state 

share. HUD is instructed to use the same methodology as used 

in fiscal year 2007 to distribute these funds; 

—$62,000,000 is for the Native American Housing and Economic Development Block Grant; 

—$160,000,000 is for economic development initiative activities and $20,000,000 is for neighborhood initiative activities; 

—$1,584,000 is for the working capital fund; and 

—$7,100,000 is for insular areas. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
140 

The Committee does not include funds, nor is the Department 

authorized to use funds for the proposed Challenge Grants. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the Committee intends to require 

that all Economic Development Initiative and Neighborhood Initiative funds awarded to grantees will be matched by 25 percent in 

funding by each grantee. This is an effort to stretch limited Federal 

funds to projects that have strong community support. 

The Committee includes modified language making technical corrections to certain targeted economic development initiative and 

neighborhood initiative grants funded under this heading in prior 

Appropriations Acts. 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Economic Development Initiative program as follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
141 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 035 HR238.041
142 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 036 HR238.042
143 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 037 HR238.043
144 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 038 HR238.044
145 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 039 HR238.045
146 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 040 HR238.046
147 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 041 HR238.047
148 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 042 HR238.048
149 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 043 HR238.049
150 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 044 HR238.050
151 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 045 HR238.051
152 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 046 HR238.052
153 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 047 HR238.053
154 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 048 HR238.054
155 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 049 HR238.055
156 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 050 HR238.056
157 

The Committee directs HUD to implement the Neighborhood Initiatives program as follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
158 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 051 HR238.057
159 

Additionally, the Committee has maintained the formula program at the highest possible level for fiscal year 2008. The Committee continues to believe that effort has been complicated by 

what can only be described as the Administration’s annual arbitrary cut to the CDBG program. The Administration has justified 

the proposed reduced funding level as part of a reform of the program to be coupled with a change to the formula for distributing 

funds. Yet despite months of lead time prior to the submission of 

the Administration’s budget request, it has failed to deliver a reform proposal in time to be considered and acted on by the relevant 

committees of jurisdiction. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program cost: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $3,713,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,713,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +3,713,000 

Limitation on Guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $137,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 137,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +137,500,000 

The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 

market loans to assist local communities in the financing of the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic development projects. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,713,000 for the Section 108 loan 

Guarantees program, the same as the enacted level of fiscal year 

2007 and $3,713,000 above the level in the budget request. The 

Committee does not agree that the activities of this account are 

best performed through the Community Development Block Grant 

program. 

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $9,900,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... – – – 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 9,900,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +9,900,000 

The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 

economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 loan 

guarantees for qualified Brownfields projects. Grants are made in 

accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The goal of the 

program is to return contaminated sites to productive uses with an 

emphasis on creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income 

people in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
160 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $9,900,000 for the Brownfields Redevelopment program, the same as the level enacted for fiscal year 

2007 and $9,900,000 above the amount in the budget request. The 

Committee does not agree that the activities funded under the 

Brownfields Redevelopment program are duplicative of EPA programs, and encourages HUD to address the problem of slow expenditure of funds. As one of the only programs in HUD to address 

commercial and industrial sites, the Committee views the 

Brownfields Redevelopment program as a vital part of this Committee’s efforts to address the environmental sustainability of facilities built and rehabilitated with HUD funds. 

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $1,757,250,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 1,966,640,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,757,250,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥209,390,000 

The HOME investment partnerships program uses formula allocations to provide grants to States, units of local government, Indian tribes, and insular areas for the purpose of expanding the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon receipt, State 

and local governments develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to provide rental assistance to eligible families. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,757,250,000 for activities funded 

under this account, the same as the level enacted in fiscal year 

2007 and $209,390,000 below the budget request. Funds are provided as follows: 

—Formula Grants: $1,701,398,000 for formula grants for 

participating jurisdictions (States, units of local government 

and consortia of units of local government) and insular areas, 

$24,750,000 above the amount enacted for fiscal year 2007 and 

$198,044,000 below the amount requested. Of the amount provided, pursuant to the authorizing statute, at least 15 percent 

of each participating jurisdiction’s allocation is reserved for 

housing that is developed, sponsored, or owned by Community 

Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs); 

—HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $9,900,000 for technical assistance activities for State and local participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs. The Committee notes that 

the HOME statute authorizes technical assistance to be provided through contracts with eligible non-profit intermediaries 

as well as with other organizations recommended by participating jurisdictions and therefore directs HUD to use 

$3,500,000 to contract with qualified non-profit intermediaries 

to provide CHDO, technical assistance in fiscal year 2008; 

—Insular Areas: $3,382,000; 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
161 

—Working Capital Fund: no less than $990,000 for transfer 

to the Working Capital Fund to support the development and 

modification of information technology systems that serve programs and activities under Community Planning and Development. 

—American Dream Down Payment Assistance Initiative: 

funds are not included, as it is duplicative of eligible activities 

under the HOME Program and does not necessitate a setaside. Participating jurisdictions are already performing downpayment assistance for low-income families under the HOME 

formula grants, and the Committee encourages them to continue these efforts; and 

—Housing Counseling: $41,580,000. 

SELF-HELP AND ASSISTED HOMEOWNERSHIP

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $49,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 69,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 59,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +10,310,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥10,000,000 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds 

make competitive grants to national and regional nonprofit organizations and consortia that have experience in providing or facilitating self-help housing opportunities. Grant funds are used to develop housing for low-income families and to develop the capacity 

of nonprofit organizations for such development. In 2006, SHOP became a separate account. SHOP was previously funded as a setaside within the Community Development Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $59,700,000 for the Self Help and 

Assisted Homeownership Program. This account funds programs 

that previously have been funded as set asides within the Community Development Fund. This is $10,310,000 above the fiscal year 

2007 enacted funding level and $10,000,000 below the budget request. 

Programs within this account provide a critical role promoting affordable housing and the ability to maximize the federal investment in these activities; a role that is all the more critical in the 

context of fiscal restraint and demonstrated results. Therefore language is included that provides: 

—$27,710,000 for the Self Help Homeownership Program; 

—$31,000,000 for the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI) for LISC and Enterprise Foundation; 

—$990,000 for Technical Assistance. 

The Committee also expects HUD to continue to provide resources to the Housing Assistance Council, the National Council of 

La Raza, the National American Indian Housing Council, and 

Habitat for Humanity International, if authorized. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
162 

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $1,441,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 1,585,990,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 1,560,990,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +119,390,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥25,000,000 

The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for the 

following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: 

(1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation (Single Room 

Occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care program. This 

account also supports activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 

$1,560,990,000, an increase of $119,390,000 above the enacted level 

for 2007 and $25,000,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation includes no less than $320,000,000 for full funding of 

the costs associated with the renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus 

Care contracts. Language is included in the bill requiring funds to 

be made available for this purpose. Funding for the Prisoner Reentry Initiative is not included and the consolidation proposal, including its version of the Samaritan bonus, is not adopted by this 

Committee, as that is a proposal best considered by the authorizing 

committee. The recommendation also includes $10,395,000 for technical assistance and data analysis, and no less than $2,475,000 for 

transfer to the Working Capital Fund for development and modifications of information technology systems that serve activities 

under Community Planning and Development. The Committee directs the Department to ensure to the largest extent possible that 

funding is made available for all eligible activities including permanent housing, transitional housing, and supportive service. 

Language is included in the bill that: (1) requires not less than 

30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding amounts made 

available for renewals under the shelter plus care program, be used 

for permanent housing; (2) requires the renewal of all expiring 

shelter plus care contracts; (3) requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for social services activities; (4) requires 

all homeless programs to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social services, and employment programs; and (5) 

provides two year availability for obligation of funds provided 

under this account, except that no year availability is provided for 

the portion of funding necessary to meet initial contract requirements for the Single Room Occupancy program. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
163 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $5,976,417,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 5,813,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,479,810,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +503,393,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +666,810,000 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance account (PBRA) provides a 

rental subsidy to a private landlord tied to a specific housing unit 

so that the properties themselves, rather than the individual living 

in the unit, remain subsidized. Amounts provided in this account 

include funding for the renewal of expiring project-based contracts, 

including Section 8, moderate rehabilitation, and single room occupancy (SRO) contracts, amendments to Section 8 project-based contracts, and administrative costs for performance-based, projectbased Section 8 contract administrators and costs associated with 

administering moderate rehabilitation and single room occupancy 

contracts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides a total of $6,479,810,000 for the annual 

renewal of project-based contracts, of which not less than 

$238,728,000 but not to exceed $286,230,000 is for the costs of contract administrators and $1,960,000 is for the Working Capital 

Fund. This funding level is $503,393,000 above the enacted level 

for fiscal year 2007 and is $666,810,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes the use of project-based 

recaptures for the renewal of project-based contracts and amendments as well as for performance-based contract administrators in 

2008. 

The Committee is deeply concerned about HUD’s inability to calculate the actual funding needs of this program. Based on recent 

calculations on expiring contracts and the true annual voucher 

cost, the Department has put the Committee in the difficult position of correcting an undefined, seemingly unlimited shortfall. The 

Department is either unable or unwilling to report its recaptures 

in this account and seems to have lost track of its contracts. As this 

program is based on legal contracts, it seems reasonable that HUD 

should be able to calculate the true need of this program. The Committee understands that the Department has engaged a contractor 

to assess the needs of this program and anticipates getting accurate information from this report. The Department is instructed to 

provide the results of that report to the Committee and to discuss 

the results within one week of the issuance of the report. 

The Committee has funded the contract administrators at the 

highest level possible given the shortfall in the renewals account 

and has given HUD the ability to put additional resources into this 

account as the anticipated report identifies recaptures. The Committee recognizes the importance of the contract administrators 

and urges HUD to fully fund these administrators through recaptures. The program will not be successful without competent administrators, but as HUD was unable to identify the true need of 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
164 

either the administrator or renewal accounts, the Committee has 

made the best possible decision in light of imperfect information. 

The Committee also looks to the recently-released GAO report, 

‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Update Its Policies 

and Procedures to Keep Pace with the Changing Housing Market 

(GAO–07–290)’’ for recommendations to the agency on improving 

this program. The Committee encourages HUD to implement the 

reforms suggested by GAO and looks forward to discussing these 

reforms with the Department when the aforementioned report on 

the needs of the program is released. 

The Department is directed to submit supporting documentation 

accompanying the fiscal year 2009 project-based Section 8 budget 

request. This documentation is to include a project-by-project analysis that verifies the funding request for renewals and amendments. 

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $734,580,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 575,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 734,580,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +159,580,000 

The Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) program provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants to finance 

the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of housing intended 

for low income elderly people. In addition, the program provides 

project-based rental assistance contracts (PRAC) to support operational costs for units constructed under the program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $734,580,000 for the Section 202 

program for fiscal year 2008, the same as the level enacted for fiscal year 2007 and $159,580,000 above the request for fiscal year 

2008. The recommendation allocates funding as follows: —$603,900,000 for new capital and project rental assistance 

contracts (PRAC); 

—$44,550,000 for one year renewals of expiring PRAC payments; 

—$59,400,000 for service coordinators and the continuation 

of congregate services grants; 

—$24,750,000 for grants to convert section 202 projects to 

assisted living facilities; the Committee intends that the Assisted Living Conversion Program funds be made available to 

cover the cost of conversion of existing affordable housing sites 

to assisted living, substantial capital repairs and emergency 

capital repair grants, not just conversions and emergency repairs; and 

—No less than $1,980,000 to be transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund to support the development of and modifications 

to information technology systems, which support programs 

and activities for the elderly. 

The Committee continues language relating to the initial contract and renewal terms for assistance provided under this headVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.006 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
165 

ing. Language is also included to allow these funds to be used for 

inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment 

Center (REAC). 

The Committee acknowledges that HUD has requested funding 

for a mixed financing demonstration project, combining Section 202 

funding with low income housing tax credit allocations. The Committee recognizes that HUD already has the authority to award 

mixed finance projects, therefore the Committee has not set aside 

separate funding for the demonstration. Like HUD, the Committee 

believes that the use of tax credits with Section 202 will result in 

a greater number of affordable senior housing units built, but that 

the complexity of mixed financing and delays involved have limited 

its use. The Committee recommends that where mixed finance Section 202 projects are awarded, that HUD permit the state allocating agency to process the Section 202 funding, subject to HUD’s 

final approval provided within a specified time frame. 

The Committee is concerned that there continue to be delays in 

the distribution of project rental assistance (PRAC payments) 

which provide operational subsidies, affecting the financial and 

physical soundness of the properties. The Committee encourages 

HUD to assess the effectiveness of its internal systems and processes for estimating and allocating PRAC funds. The Committee directs the Department to submit a plan to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2008 detailing the status of PRAC funding. 

Given the demographic trends of the nation, and the studies recently released by Policy Development and Research, the Committee recognizes the immense value of and need for the Section 

202 program and is disappointed that the Department continually 

proposes cuts to this program. The Congressionally-mandated Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century stated in its 2002 final report that an additional 730,000 rent-assisted units will be needed by 2020 for limited income seniors 65 and older. But the Section 202 program is 

able to fund fewer and fewer units each year: 5,500 units in fiscal 

year 2004; 4,700 units in 2005; and 4,300 units in 2006. The Department’s request expects to support the construction of 3,000 new 

affordable senior units across the nation, the lowest amount ever 

proposed in one year. In addition, the Joint Center for Housing 

found that for every unit of affordable housing built for seniors, two 

are lost either by the conversion of affordable housing to marketrate housing or by sponsors of Section 202 housing opting out of 

the program when their contracts expire. Finally, for every one 

unit of elderly housing that becomes available, 10 seniors are on 

the waiting list, according to the AARP. The Committee is dedicated to the current and future needs of the nation’s senior citizens. The Department should be, as well. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
166 

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $236,610,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 125,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 236,610,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +111,610,000 

The Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) program 

provides eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital 

grants to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 

supportive housing for disabled persons and provides project-based 

rental assistance (PRAC) to support operational costs for such 

units. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $236,610,000 for Section 811 activities, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level, and 

$111,610,000 above the budget request. In doing so, the Committee 

rejects the proposal to all but eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that accommodate low income disabled individuals. 

The Committee finds that, in fact, there is universal agreement at 

all levels of analysis that facility construction is needed for this 

program in fiscal year 2008. The recommendation allocates funding 

as follows: 

—Up to $145,875,000 for capital grants and PRAC; 

—$74,745,000 for renewals or amendments of expiring tenant-based rental assistance; 

—$15,000,000 for PRAC renewals; 

—$990,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the 

development and maintenance of information technology systems for programs and activities for housing for persons with 

disabilities programs; and 

—No funds are provided for ‘‘mainstream’’ vouchers in fiscal 

year 2008. 

The Committee continues language allowing these funds to be 

used for inspections and analysis of data by HUD’s REAC program 

office. 

The Committee has included no funding for new 811 tenantbased assistance. This is based on continuing concerns regarding 

HUD’s mismanagement of the mainstream tenant-based program. 

The Committee is concerned that funds that were appropriated for 

this program for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 were never actually 

awarded to applicant agencies in response to the Notices of Funding Availability. This is also in recognition of HUD’s failure to issue 

programmatic guidance to ensure that rental assistance is targeted 

to people with disabilities in need of supportive housing. In addition, HUD has performed ineffective oversight of local agencies’ obligation to ensure that rental assistance remains targeted to the intended population upon turnover. 

The Committee directs HUD to report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2008, the number of 

non-elderly disabled vouchers that are still in circulation and are 

being used by non-elderly disabled individuals. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
167 

HOUSING COUNSELING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... $50,000,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥50,000,000 

Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 

authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and the 

homeless. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate 

account for housing counseling activities, but instead has provided 

$41,580,000 for this activity as a set-aside within the HOME Investments Partnership Program account. 

FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 

HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections in 

excess of the established basic rents for units in Section 236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in appropriations 

acts, the Secretary is authorized under the Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled Projects Operating 

Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible Subsidy Fund. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 

as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 

Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will not 

be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset flexible 

subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures to support affordable housing projects. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes language identical to 

language carried in prior years, to allow surplus funds derived 

from rental collections which were in excess of allowable rent levels 

to be returned to project owners only for the purposes of rehabilitating and renovating those properties. 

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $13,000,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... 13,000,000 

Budget request, 2008 ......................................................................... 16,000,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... 16,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,000,000 

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... 16,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 

Improvement Act of 2000, authorized the Secretary to establish 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
168 

Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 

the construction, design, and performance of manufactured homes. 

All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs of administering the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends up to $16,000,000 for the manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees collected 

and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act 

of 2000. The amount recommended is the same as the budget request and $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Language contained in previous Acts is continued to ensure that the 

net expenditures do not exceed fee collections at the end of the fiscal year. 

In addition, the Committee includes language allowing the Department to collect fees from program participants for the dispute 

resolution and installation programs. These fees are to be deposited 

into the trust fund and may be used by the Department subject to 

the overall cap placed on the account. 

OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $26,136,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 27,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 27,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +1,464,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Rental Housing Assistance account provides amendment 

funding for housing assisted under a variety of HUD housing programs. 

RECISSION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $– – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... ¥27,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥27,600,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥27,600,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct loans Limitations of 

guaranteed loans Administrative expenses 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................... $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $351,450,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 351,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ........................... – – – – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ........................ – – – – – – – – – 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
169 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) mutual mortgage 

insurance program account includes the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management housing insurance funds. 

This program account covers unsubsidized programs, primarily the 

single-family home mortgage program, which is the largest of all 

the FHA programs. The cooperative housing insurance program 

provides mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than 

five units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 

corporation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments in the MMI program account: $185,000,000,000 for 

loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct loans. The recommendation also includes $428,850,000 for administrative expenses, of 

which $347,500,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses, and 

$4,000,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, $77,400,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 

contract expenses, including $5,000,000 for consumer education 

and of which $25,600,000 is transferred to the Working Capital 

Fund for development and modifications to information technology 

systems that serve programs or activities under the Office of Housing or the Federal Housing Administration. The Committee continues language, as requested, appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances. 

The Committee has also lifted the cap on the number of Home 

Equity Conversion Mortgages that the Department may issue until 

September 30, 2008. In addition, the Committee has lifted the multifamily loan limit in order to permit more FHA loans to occur in 

fiscal year 2008. However, the Committee has not carried several 

other proposals of the Administration, as the Committee on Financial Services is in the process of modernizing FHA and is the best 

arbiter of these complicated issues. 

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct 

loans 

Limitations of 

guaranteed loans 

Administrative 

expenses Program costs 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ............. $50,000,000 $45,000,000,000 $229,086,000 $8,712,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 .......... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,600,000 

Recommended in the bill ...................... 50,000,000 45,000,000,000 229,086,000 8,712,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .... – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 – – – +10,000,000,000 – – – +112,000 

The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) general and special 

risk insurance (GI and SRI) program account includes 17 different 

programs administered by FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety of insurance programs for special purpose single and multi-family loans, including loans for property improvements, manufactured 

housing, multi-family rental housing, condominiums, housing for 

the elderly, hospitals, group practice facilities, and nursing homes. 

The SRI fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, 

declining urban areas that would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, mortgages 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
170 

for experimental housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would 

not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing 

counseling. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 

commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 

account as requested: $45,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 

$50,000,000 for direct loans. 

As requested, the recommendation includes $8,712,000 in direct 

appropriations for credit subsidy. The recommendation also includes $229,086,000 for administrative expenses, of which 

$209,286,000 is transferred to Salaries and Expenses and 

$19,800,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An 

additional $78,111,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 

expenses, of which no less than $10,692,000 is transferred to the 

Working Capital Fund for development and modifications to information technology systems that serve activities under the Office of 

Housing or the Federal Housing Administration. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of below market sales 

of HUD multi-family properties and loans in foreclosure through 

first refusal and negotiated purchase rights. The Committee believes that the ability of local governments to exercise their statutory right of first refusal is an essential tool to preserving affordability and improving the condition of properties that have often 

fallen into disrepair. When valuing properties or loans for a noncompetitive sale to States or units of local governments, the Committee directs the Department to consider, but not be limited to, industry standard appraisal practices. The Department must take 

into consideration affordability restrictions and the cost of repairs 

needed to bring the property to at least minimum State and local 

code standards. Further, the Committee directs the Department to 

conduct a study on the impact that these sales have on the FHA 

fund by March 14, 2008. 

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of guaranteed loans: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................. $200,000,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................... 100,000,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... 200,000,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .......................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ........................................ +100,000,000,000 

Administrative expenses: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ................................................. $10,700,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................... 11,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... 10,700,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .......................................... – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ........................................ ¥300,000 

The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program facilitates 

the financing of residential mortgage loans insured or guaranteed 

by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of VetVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.006 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
171 

erans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees the 

timely payment of principal and interest on securities issued by 

private service institutions such as mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations that 

assemble pools of mortgages, and issues securities backed by the 

pools. In turn, investment proceeds are used to finance additional 

mortgage loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit 

in the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 

insurance companies, and individuals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation on 

loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as requested, the 

same as the level provided in fiscal year 2007. The Committee also 

recommends $10,700,000 for administrative expenses to be transferred to Salaries and Expenses. 

The Committee once again rejects the budget proposal to charge 

issuers an upfront fee to offset the administrative expenses of the 

program. No detailed explanation has been provided to justify this 

change from prior years or its likely adverse effect on volume and 

affordable rental housing production. Raising program costs can 

only diminish the contribution of GNMA in expanding lower cost 

housing opportunities. In the face of the growing nationwide shortage of affordable housing, and the goal of increased homeownership, imposing this change to the way GNMA conducts business 

makes little sense. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $50,087,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 65,040,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 58,087,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +8,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2007 ................................................ ¥6,953,000 

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 

Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, and 

demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions are 

carried out internally through contracts with industry, non-profit 

research organizations, and educational institutions and through 

agreements with State and local governments and other Federal 

agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $58,087,000 for the Office of Policy 

Development and Research. This is $8,000,000 above the level of 

funding as enacted for fiscal year 2007 and $6,953,000 below the 

budget request. Of the amounts made available, language is included to designate: 

—$29,693,000 for basic research; 

—$22,394,000 for grants to institutions of higher education 

funded under Section 107 including Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, tribal colleges 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
172 

and universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

and Hispanic Serving Institutions. In addition, the Committee 

is concerned that the Asian American and Pacific Islander 

(AAPI) community has significantly higher rates of poverty and 

rent burden than national average. The Committee encourages 

HUD to investigate ways to serve this community through the 

grants awarded under Section 107 or the University Partnership Program and to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding the Department’s plans to do 

so; and 

—$5,000,000 for the PATH program. The Committee does 

not continue language that exempts 50 percent of the funds 

provided from competition. All funds are to be competitively 

awarded, and the Committee instructs that the PATH funds 

will be directed toward energy efficiency in low-income housing. It is appropriate that all research initiatives focus on lowand moderate-income populations, not the general population 

or the market to which most housing development is geared. 

The Committee agrees with the proposal to administer this 

program within Policy Development and Research. 

The Committee believes that the preservation of affordable housing should become an integral part of transit oriented development 

policies. The Committee commends both the Federal Transit Administration and Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) for jointly sponsoring the recently published study ‘‘Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit.’’ The Committee believes the study provides a number of valuable recommendations for federal, state, and local policy makers to 

promote affordable housing near transit. On the federal level, the 

Committee hopes that the cooperation between FTA and HUD on 

the study will be the beginning of a new partnership on transit oriented development. Accordingly, the Committee includes 

$1,000,000 within the funds provided for the FTA and HUD to establish a new interagency working group on transit oriented development and affordable housing. The new working group should follow up on recommendations made in the jointly sponsored HUD 

and FTA study mentioned above. The working group should also 

create an action plan with specific recommendations on how HUD 

and the FTA can improve policy coordination and provide incentives through existing programs to further promote affordable 

housing near transit corridors. The HUD and FTA action plan for 

mixed income affordable housing near transit should be submitted 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within six 

months of enactment. 

Additionally, the Committee requires the Office of Policy Development and Research, via research and the PATH program, to investigate ways to incorporate green, sustainable housing construction and rehabilitation practices in HUD’s programs. Much like 

PATH has encouraged the Department to incorporate steel into its 

construction programs, the Committee encourages the Office of Policy Development and Research to investigate green building and report on how new, sustainable technologies can be incorporated into 

each of HUD’s programs. 

The Committee is disappointed that HUD has refused to share 

information about the Moving to Opportunity program with scholVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.006 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
173 

ars and researchers and instructs HUD to make this information 

available while protecting confidentiality. The results of this demonstration are critical to future policy decisions in the Housing 

Choice Voucher program, and should be scrutinized by a variety of 

academic researchers. 

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $45,540,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 45,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 45,540,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. – – – 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +540,000 

The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 

as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing 

and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The Fair Housing 

Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as ‘‘substantially 

equivalent’’ to HUD with respect to enforcement policies and procedures. FHAP assures prompt and effective processing of complaints 

filed under title VIII that are within the jurisdiction of State and 

local fair housing agencies. The Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

(FHIP) alleviates housing discrimination by providing support to 

private nonprofit organizations, State and local government agencies and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 

preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing 

opportunities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $45,540,000 for this account, the same as the fiscal year 2007 enacted level and $540,000 

above the Administration’s budget request. Of this amount, 

$24,820,000 is for FHAP and $20,180,000 is for FHIP. 

The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, delineated by 

each program and activity. 

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $150,480,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 116,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 130,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥20,480,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +14,000,000 

The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, provides grants 

to State and local governments to perform lead hazard reduction 

activities in housing occupied by low income families. The program 

also provides technical assistance, undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup methodologies, and develops technical 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
174 

guidance and regulations in cooperation with the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $130,000,000 for this account, 

$14,000,000 above the budget request. Amounts provided are to be 

allocated as follows: 

—$92,600,000 for the lead-based paint hazard control grant 

program to provide assistance to State and local governments 

and Native American tribes for lead-based paint abatement in 

private low income housing; 

—$8,712,000 for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination Action 

Program), which provides competitive grants to non-profit organizations and the private sector for activities, which leverage 

funds for local lead hazard control programs; 

—$5,742,000 for technical assistance and support to State 

and local agencies and private property owners; and 

—$8,712,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative for competitive grants for research, standards development, and education 

and outreach activities to address lead-based paint poisoning 

and other housing-related diseases and hazards. 

—$14,234,000 for the Lead Hazard Demonstration Project. 

While the Committee recognizes the value of this demonstration project, budgetary constraints limit the amount of funding 

the Committee can dedicate to this project. 

The Committee continues language delegating the authority and 

responsibility for performing environmental review for the Healthy 

Homes Initiative, LEAP, and Lead Technical Studies projects and 

programs to governmental entities that are familiar with local environmental conditions, trends and priorities. 

The Committee reminds the Department that all funding provided under this heading is to be competitively awarded as required under the HUD Reform Act of 1989 and Section 305 of the 

Administrative Provisions under this title. 

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS} 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $581,108,000 

Transfers FHA/GNMA ....................................................................... 574,285,000 

Total ................................................................................................. 1,155,393,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 654,092,000 

Transfers ............................................................................................. 563,908,000 

Total ................................................................................................. 1,218,000,000 

Recommended in this bill .................................................................. 642,730,000 

Transfers ............................................................................................. 568,649,650 

Total ................................................................................................. 1,211,379,650 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ..................................................... +55,986,650 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................... ¥6,620,350 

This account finances all salaries and related costs associated 

with administering the programs of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, except for the Office of Inspector General 

and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include housing, mortgage credit and secondary market proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.006 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
175 

grams, community planning and development programs, departmental management, legal services, field direction and administration. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends total funding of $1,211,379,650 for 

the salaries and expenses of the Department. This is $55,986,650 

above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount and $6,620,350 below 

the budget request. 

The Department is limited to the object class levels that are described in the fiscal year 2008 Congressional Budget Submission. 

This is the distribution that HUD must use unless changes are 

granted as part of the Department’s Operating Plan. 

Language is included to allow the Department to transfer up to 

$15,000,000 from Salaries and Expenses to the Working Capital 

Fund after receipt and approval of an Operating Plan change detailing the uses of the transfers and the object classes being reduced in this account. 

Funding for indemnities is at the budget request level but is further limited to non-programmatic litigation and is restricted to the 

payment of attorney fees only. Program-related litigation must be 

paid from the individual program office Salaries and Expenses allocation. The budget submission must include program-related litigation costs as a separate line item request. 

Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.—All Departments within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction are required to submit operating plans and reprogramming letters and reorganization 

proposals for Committee approval. HUD is reminded that operating 

plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any reallocation of 

resources totaling more than $500,000 among any program, project 

or activity as well as to any significant reorganization within offices or the proposed creation or elimination of any program or office, regardless of the dollar amount involved and any reorganization, regardless of the dollar amount involved. Object class changes 

above $500,000 also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the 

accompanying report, the approved level for any program, project, 

or activity is that amount detailed for that program, project, or activity in the Department’s annual detailed Congressional submission. These requirements apply to all funds provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make any necessary changes 

during fiscal year 2008 to its current procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied to other agencies funded in the 

bill. 

Budget Submission.—The Committee expects the Department’s 

fiscal year 2009 submission to be submitted in the identical format 

and continues its direction that strategic planning documents, formats or materials are not to be incorporated into the submission. 

The Committee continues language under General Provisions setting forth such requirements. 

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in 

prior Acts, which designates amounts provided from various accounts for Salaries and Expenses and which requires the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.006 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
176 

ment to implement appropriate funds control and financial management procedures. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $195,356,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 220,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 125,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥70,356,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥95,000,000 

The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development of, 

modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide information technology systems, and for the continuing operation of both 

Department-wide and program-specific information technology systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee remains concerned about HUD’s information 

technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD’s and Congress’ 

ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD’s programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD’s information systems to provide 

the information necessary to assess program performance and ensure effective resource management. The Committee recommends 

$125,000,000 in direct appropriation for the Working Capital Fund 

to support Department-wide information technology system activities, $70,356,000 below the fiscal year 2007 level and $95,000,000 

below the budget request. In addition to the direct appropriation 

for Department-wide systems, funds are transferred from various 

accounts to be used exclusively for program-specific information 

technology requirements. 

The Committee has included language that precludes the use of 

these or any other funds appropriated previously to the Working 

Capital Fund or program offices for transfer to the Working Capital 

Fund that would be used or transferred to any other entity in HUD 

or elsewhere for the purposes of implementing the Administration’s 

‘‘e-Gov’’ initiative without the Committee’s approval in HUD’s operating plan. The Committee directs that funds appropriated for specific projects and activities should not be reduced or eliminated in 

order to fund other activities inside and outside of HUD without 

the expressed approval of the Committee. HUD is not to contribute 

or participate in activities that are specifically precluded in legislation, unless the Committee agrees to a change. 

The Department is advised that the Committee is concerned 

about HUD’s insufficient and ineffective information systems, but 

the Committee is not assured by the budget submission that additional appropriations will improve the situation. Until a thorough 

analysis is done of the current systems and the true needs of the 

Department are assessed, the Committee will not appropriate 

funds for yet more inefficient information systems. The Inspector 

General is instructed to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as to the status of current information systems and future needs by June 1, 2008. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
177 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................................. $88,853,000 $23,760,000 $112,613,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................... 88,240,000 23,760,000 112,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ........................................................................... 90,000,000 23,760,000 113,760,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... +1,147,000 – – – +1,147,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ...................................................... – – – – – – +1,760,000 

The Office of Inspector General (IG) provides agency-wide audit 

and investigative functions to identify and correct management and 

administrative deficiencies that create conditions for existing or potential instances of waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The audit 

function provides internal audit, contract audit, and inspection 

services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, re-pricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of agency 

operations. The investigative function provides for the detection 

and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $113,760,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,147,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2007 and $1,760,000 above the budget request. 

Of this amount, $23,760,000 is derived from transfers from Federal 

Housing Administration funds. 

Language is included in the bill which: (1) designates amounts 

available to the Inspector General from other accounts; and (2) 

clarifies the authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain personnel issues. 

In the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the Committee has 

made significant and necessary funding allocations to the Section 

8 and Public Housing programs. In order to ensure that these increased allocations are spent efficiently and effectively, the Committee has also provided additional funds for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee is confident that the Inspector 

General can provide the oversight necessary to ensure that this 

funding is properly utilized. 

The Committee directs the IG to report on its audits and investigative efforts either in place or currently planned, related to the 

use of Departmental funds in the rebuilding efforts in the Gulf 

Coast in the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes. The Committee 

notes that the Community Development Block Grant funds that 

were provided to the Gulf States have been spent at a slow rate. 

The Committee requests that the IG provide an update on their 

oversight on the allocation and distribution of these funds no later 

than January 1, 2008. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
178 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT SALARIES

AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $66,150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 66,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 66,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. ¥150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥150,000 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 

was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 

(GSEs)—the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 

and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 

The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $66,000,000 for OFHEO, $150,000 

below fiscal year 2007 and the budget request, to be derived from 

fees assessed to the GSEs and deposited into the Federal Housing 

Enterprises Oversight Fund. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 

HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated to 

be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, requiring submission of a spending plan for technical assistance, training 

and management improvement activities prior to the expenditure 

of funds. 

Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess 

funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
179 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

on the number of Federally assisted units under lease and the per 

unit cost of these units. 

Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements for 

the Department’s annual congressional justification of appropriations. 

Section 213 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

Section 214 relates to state authority regarding participation on 

housing boards. 

Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based assistance in 

specific circumstances. 

Section 216 continues language in previous acts specifying the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan recipients. 

Section 217 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for family 

unification upon turnover. 

Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the Section 8 program. 

Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages 

until September 30, 2008. 

Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The Committee does not recommend several new administrative provisions 

proposed in the budget to amend various housing authorization 

statutes. 

Section 222 continues language authorizing the Secretary to 

waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot 

project. 

Section 223 continues language clarifying that the projects selected by HUD for Section 202b assistance prior to December 1, 

2003 are aslo eligible to use the limited partnership ownership 

structure. No more than three commercial properties are authorized to receive grants under section 202b of the Housing Act of 

1959. 

Section 224 continues language requiring priority consideration 

for Moving to Work Demonstration applications from Santa Clara, 

San Jose and San Bernardino. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
180 

TITLE III—RELATED AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE

BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $5,914,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 6,150,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,150,000 

Bill compared with:.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +236,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) was established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Access Board is responsible for developing guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Telecommunications Act. These 

guidelines ensure that buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, and telecommunications equipment covered by these laws are 

readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board is also responsible for developing standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act for accessible electronic and information technology used by Federal agencies. In addition, the Access Board enforces the Architectural Barriers Act, and provides 

training and technical assistance on the guidelines and standards 

it develops. 

The Access Board also has additional responsibilities under the 

Help America Vote Act. The Access Board serves on the Board of 

Advisors and the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, 

which helps the 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 

Access Board, an increase of $236,000 over fiscal year 2007 and the 

same as the budget request. 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... 20,428,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 22,322,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 22,072,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 +1,894,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥250,000 

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in 

1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the 

regulation of international waterborne commerce of the United 

States. In addition, FMC has responsibility for licensing and bonding ocean transportation intermediaries and assuring that vessel 

owners or operators establish financial responsibility to pay judgment for death or injury to passengers, or nonperformance of a 

cruise, on voyages from U.S. ports. It monitors the activities of 

ocean common carriers, who operate in the U.S./foreign commerce 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
181 

to ensure just and reasonable practices, maintains a trade monitoring and enforcement program, monitors the laws and practices 

of foreign governments which could have a discriminatory or other 

impacts on shipping conditions in the U.S., among other activities. 

The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq.), the Foreign 

Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq.), and 

section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. app. 876). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,072,000 for the Federal Maritime Commission, which is $1,644,000 above the amount provided 

in fiscal year 2007 and $250,000 below the budget request. The reduction below the budget request is due to overall budget constraints and is implemented without prejudice. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $79,338,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 83,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 85,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +5,662,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ +2,000,000 

Initially established along with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

commenced operations on April 1, 1967, as an independent federal 

agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States as well as significant accidents in the 

other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and 

pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing 

future accidents. Although it has always operated independently, 

NTSB relied on DOT for funding and administrative support until 

the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–633) severed all ties between the two organizations effective April of 1975. 

In addition to its investigatory duties, NTSB is responsible for 

maintaining the government’s database of civil aviation accidents 

and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of 

national significance. Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of international treaties, NTSB supplies investigators to serve 

as U.S. Accredited Representatives for aviation accidents overseas 

involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major 

components of U.S. manufacture. NTSB also serves as the ‘‘court 

of appeals’’ for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or 

when civil penalties are assessed by FAA. In addition, the NTSB 

operates the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, Virginia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $85,000,000 for salaries and expenses, an increase of $5,662,000 above fiscal year 2007 and 

$2,000,000 above the budget request. The NTSB had 424 employees in fiscal year 2005 and has received funding to maintain a staff 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
182 

level of 396 since fiscal year 2006. The additional amount funds 

eleven safety critical staff, to result in a total staffing level of 407. 

Furthermore, the Committee directs that none of these additional 

funds shall be used for the Academy. 

The Committee notes that NTSB violated and continues to be in 

violation of the Antideficiency Act because it did not obtain or have 

budget authority to cover the net present value of the entire 20– 

year training center lease obligation at the time the capital lease 

agreement was signed in 2001. To ensure the NTSB can satisfy it 

contractual obligations, the Committee includes language allowing 

the NTSB to use its fiscal year 2008 appropriation on the lease 

payments due in fiscal year 2008. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $116,820,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 119,800,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 119,800,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +2,980,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ – – – 

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law 

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation now operates under the trade name ‘‘NeighborWorks America.’’ 

NeighborWorks America helps local communities establish working 

efficient and effective partnerships between residents and representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnershipbased organizations are independent, tax-exempt, community-based 

nonprofit entities, often referred to as NeighborWorks organizations. 

Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to Neighborhood Housing Services of America (NHSA), the NeighborWorks network’s national secondary market. The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local NeighborWorks organizations’ revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities that are placed with private sector social investors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a funding level of $119,800,000 for 

fiscal year 2008, the same amount as the budget request and an 

increase of $2,980,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2007 appropriation. The Committee commends the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for its commitment to building green, sustainable 

affordable housing and encourages the Corporation to continue its 

technical assistance and grant activities in a way that promotes 

more sustainable building practices in the field of affordable housing. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
183 

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 ......................................................... $1,788,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ....................................................... 2,320,000 

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

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .................................................. +212,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2008 ................................................ ¥320,000 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for operating expenses of 

the Interagency Council on Homelessness, $212,000 above the enacted amount for fiscal year 2007 and $320,000 below the requested amount. The continued lack of cooperation between the 

Council and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

remains a concern for the Committee. In addition, the failure of the 

Administration to put forth a comprehensive funding plan for the 

elimination of chronic homelessness which includes other mainstream programs in multiple Departments indicates that the Council is not being successful in developing a government-wide response to this national problem. Therefore, the Council is instructed to work closely with the Departments that administer 

homeless assistance programs to develop comprehensive policies 

that make more efficient use of Federal dollars. While the Committee commends the Council for its role in encouraging local jurisdictions to develop 10-year plans to end homelessness, there must 

be a recognition that better Federal coordination and collaboration 

will lead to more effective strategies at the local level. As much, if 

not more, time and energy must be spent to pull together Federal 

resources in a complementary manner than extensive travel to 

reach more and more small jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions will 

benefit more from greater Federal coordination than from plans 

that rely on poorly integrated sources of revenue at the Federal 

and state levels. The Council must present to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees no later than March 15, 2008 a 

comprehensive funding strategy that demonstrates that the President’s initiative to end chronic homelessness will achieve its result 

within the 10-year timeframe originally stated. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 402. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 403. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
184 

Section 405. The Committee continues the provision specifying 

reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new 

offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 407. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

agencies and departments funded herein to report on sole source 

contracts. 

Section 408. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting 

Federal training not directly related to the performance of official 

duties. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of the rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states: 

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * * 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
185 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last 

year of authorization 

Amount of program 

or new fees 

Title I—Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Operations ..................................... 2007 8,064,000 8,374,217 8,176,606 

Facilities and Equipment .............. 2007 3,110,000 2,516,520 2,515,000 

Research, Engineering and Development ...................................... 2007 356,261 130,234 140,000 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports ............. 2007 3,700,000 3,514,500 3,514,500 

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and Operations .................. 1998 — — 148,472 

Railroad Research and Development ......................................... 1998 20,758 — 33,250 

Grants to the National Passenger 

Railroad Corp ........................... 2002 955,000 826,476 1,350,000 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Administrative Expenses ............... n/a n/a n/a 18,130 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration: 

Research and Development .......... n/a n/a n/a 12,000 

Surface Transportation Board ................ 1998 12,000 13,850 26,495 

Title II—Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Rental Assistance: 

Section 8 Contract Renewals and 

Administrative Expenses .......... 1994 8,446,173 5,458,106 6,386,810 

Section 441 Contracts .................. 1994 109,410 150,000 54,100 

Section 8 Preservation, Protection, 

and Family Unification ............. 1994 759,259 541,000 — 

Contract Administrators ................ — — — 145,728 

Public Housing Capital Fund ........ 2003 3,000,000 2,712,255 2,438,964 

Public Housing Operating Fund .... 2003 2,900,000 3,576,600 4,200,000 

Native American Housing Block Grants: 

Native American Housing Block 

Grants ....................................... 2007 * SSAN 621,720 626,965 

Federal Guarantees ....................... 2007 * SSAN 1,980 1,044 

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund ... 2007 * SSAN 6,000 7,450 

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant .. 2005 — 8,928,000 8,727 

Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund ........................................ 2005 — 992,000 1,010 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

Aids .................................................... 1994 156,300 156,000 300,100 

Rural Housing and Economics Development .................................................. — — — 16,830 

Community Development Fund: 

Community Development Block 

Grant ......................................... 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 3,951,900 

Economic Development Initiatives — — — 160,000 

Neighborhood Initiatives ............... — — — 20,000 

HOME Program: 

HOME Investment Partnership ...... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 1,757,250 

Downpayment Assistance Initiative 2007 200,000 24,750 — 

HOPE VI .................................................. 2007 SSAN* 99,000 100,000 

Brownfields Redevelopment ................... — — — 9,900 

Self Help and Assisted Homeownership 

Opportunity: 

Capacity Building ......................... 1994 25,000 20,000 31,000 

Housing Assistance Council ......... — — — — 

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program .......................... 2000 — 20,000 27,710 

National Housing Development 

Corporation ............................... — — — — 

Homeless Assistance Grants ........ 1994 465,774 599,000 1,560,990 

Housing for the Elderly ................. 2003 — 783,286 734,580 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
186 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last 

year of authorization 

Amount of program 

or new fees 

Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................................... 2003 — 250,515 236,610 

FHA General and Special Risk Program 

Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans .. 1995 — (20,885,072) (45,000,000) 

Limitation on Direct Loans ........... 1995 — (220,000) (50,000,000) 

Credit Subsidy ............................... 1995 — 188,395 8,600 

Administrative Expenses ............... 1995 — 197,470 229,086 

GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Loan 

Guarantee Program Account: 

Limitation on Guaranteed Loans .. 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (200,000,000) 

Administrative Expenses ............... 1996 — 9,101 11,000 

Policy Development and Research 1994 36,470 35,000 58,087 

Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Program .............................. 1994 26,000 20,481 45,540 

Lead Hazards Reduction Program 1994 276,000 185,000 130,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................. 1994 1,029,496 916,963 1,160,638 

*SSAN: Such sums as necessary. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

UNDER TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Account to which the transfer is made Account from which the transfer is made Amount 

Office of the Secretary ........................... Office of the Secretary .......................... SSAN* Subject to certain conditions 

OST: Minority Business Outreach ........... OST:Salaries and Expenses ................... Unexpended funds 

Essential Air Service Program ................ Payments to Air Carriers ....................... SSAN* 

FMCSA: Motor Carrier Safety Grants ...... FHWA: Federal-aid highways ................. To be determined 

FAA: Operations ...................................... FAA: Operations ..................................... ≤2% of Certain Funds Subject to conditions 

FTA: any new account ............................ FTA: any old account ............................. Available funding 

FTA: Administrative Expenses ................ FTA: Administrative Expenses ................ SSDAN* Subject to Congressional Approval 

Operations and Training ........................ Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) 

Program Account.

$3,526,000** 

* SSAN—Such Sums as Necessary. 

** Up to this amount is available to be transferred. 

UNDER TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Account to which the transfer is made Account from which the transfer is made Amount 

Working Captial Fund ................................... Tenant-Based Rental Assistance .................. $6,494,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Project-Based Rental Assistance .................. 1,960,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Public Housing Capital Fund ........................ * 10,000,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Community Development Fund ..................... $1,584,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Home Investment Partnerships Program ...... 990,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Homeless Assistance Grants ......................... 2,475,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Housing for the Elderly ................................. 1,980,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Housing for Persons with Disabilities .......... 990,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program 

Account.

25,550,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... FHA: General and Special Risk Program Account.15,692,000 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Salaries and Expenses .................................. * 15,000,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
187 

Account to which the transfer is made Account from which the transfer is made Amount 

Working Capital Fund ................................... Housing Opportunities of People with AIDS 1,485,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. Native American Housing Block Grants ........ * 148,500 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program.* 247,500 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee 

Fund.

* 34,650 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. Community Development Loan Guarantees .. 743,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program 

Account.

* 347,490,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. FHA: General and Special Risk Program Account.209,286,000 

Salaries and Expenses .................................. GNMA: Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee program Account.10,700,000 

Office of the Inspector General .................... FHA: Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program 

Account.

* 3,960,000 

Office of the Inspector General .................... FHA: General and Special Risk Program Account.19,800,000 

Flexible Subsidy Fund ................................... Flexible Subsidy Fund ................................... ** TBD 

* Up to this amount is available to be transferred. 

** Subject to the level of uncommitted balances of excess rental charges of Public Housing Authorities. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 443—INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44302. General authority 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
188 

(f) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall extend through August 

31, 2006, 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, 

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. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
189 

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— 

(2) * * * 

(3)(A) not to exceed, for such part of the property or projects 

as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior and 

land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $38,025 per 

family unit without bedroom, $42,120 per family unit with one 

bedroom, $50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 

per family unit with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family 

unit with four or more bedrooms, or not to exceed $17,460 per 

space; except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type 

structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the 

dollar amount limitations per family unit to not to exceed 

$43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, $49,140 per family 

unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family unit with two bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 

$85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as the 

case may be, to compensate for the higher costs incident to the 

construction of elevator type structures of sound standards of 

construction and design; and except that the Secretary may, by 

regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount limitations contained in this paragraph by not to exceed 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) To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage 

on any property or project of a corporation or trust of the character 

described in paragraph numbered (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall involve a principal obligation in an amount— 

(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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR238.007 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
190 

placement cost of the property or project when the proposed 

physical improvements are completed: Provided, That as to 

projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary 

may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations 

per family unit to not to exceed $43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, $49,710 per family unit with one bedroom, 

$60,446 per family unit with two bedrooms, $78,197 per family 

unit with three bedrooms, and $85,836 per family unit with 

four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for 

the higher cost incident to the construction of elevator-type 

structures of sound standards of construction and design; (B)(i) 

the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar 

amount limitations in subparagraph (A) (as such limitations 

may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of 

this Act) by not to exceed 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) To be eligible for insurance under this section a mortgage 

shall meet the following conditions: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The mortgage shall— 

(A) * * * 

(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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
191 

improvements as defined by the Secretary), $38,025 per family 

unit without a bedroom, $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, $50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, $62,010 per 

family unit with three bedrooms, and $70,200 per family unit 

with four or more bedrooms, except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit 

not to exceed $43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, 

$49,140 per family unit with one bedroom, $60,255 per family 

unit with two bedrooms, $75,465 per family unit with three 

bedrooms, and $85,328 per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs 

incident to the construction of elevator-type structures of sound 

standards of construction and design; and (II) with respect to 

rehabilitation projects involving not more than five family 

units, the Secretary may by regulation increase by 25 per centum any of the dollar amount limitations in subparagraph 

(B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations may have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this Act) which are applicable to 

units with two, three, or four or more bedrooms; (III) the Secretary may, by regulation, increase the dollar amount limitations contained in subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) (as such limitations 

may have been adjusted in accordance with section 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-by-project basis¿ 206A of this Act) by 

not to exceed 170 percent in any geographical area where the 

Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 

170 percent, or 215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis, but 

in no case may any such increase exceed 90 percent where the 

Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased by the Government National Mortgage Association in 

implementing its special assistance functions under section 305 

of this Act (as such section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved); (IV) That nothing contained in this 

subparagraph (B)(iii)(I) shall preclude the insurance of mortgages covering existing multifamily dwellings to be rehabilitated or reconstructed for the purposes set forth in subsection 

(a) of this section; (V) the Secretary may further increase any 

of the dollar limitations which would otherwise apply to such 

projects by not to exceed 20 per centum if such increase is necessary to account for the increased cost of the project due to 

the installation therein of a solar energy system (as defined in 

subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of section 2(a) of this 

Act) or residential energy conservation measures (as defined in 

section 210(11)(A) through (G) and (I) of Public Law 95–619) 

in cases where the Secretary determines that such measures 

are in addition to those required under the minimum property 

standards and will be cost-effective over the life of the measure; and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
192 

HOUSING FOR MODERATE INCOME AND DISPLACED FAMILIES

SEC. 221. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) To be eligible for insurance under this section, a mortgage 

shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) if executed by a mortgagor which is a public body or 

agency (and, except with respect to a project assisted or to be 

assisted pursuant to section 8 of the United States Housing 

Act of 1937, which certifies that it is not receiving financial assistance from the United States exclusively pursuant to such 

Act), a cooperative (including an investor-sponsor who meets 

such requirements as the Secretary may impose to assure that 

the consumer interest is protected), or a limited dividend corporation (as defined by the Secretary), or a private nonprofit 

corporation or association, or other mortgagor approved by the 

Secretary, and regulated or supervised under Federal or State 

laws or by political subdivisions of States, or agencies thereof, 

or by the Secretary under a regulatory agreement or otherwise, 

as to rents, charges, and methods of operation, in such form 

and in such manner as in the opinion of the Secretary will effectuate the purposes of this section— 

(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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
193 

305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before 

November 30, 1983) is involved; and 

* * * * * * * 

(4) if executed by a mortgagor and which is approved by the 

Secretary— 

(ii)(I) not exceed, or such part of the property or project 

as may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior 

land improvements as defined by the Secretary), $37,843 

per family unit without a bedroom, $42,954 per family unit 

with one bedroom, $51,920 per family unit with two bedrooms, $65,169 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 

$73,846 per family unit with four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit to not to exceed 

$40,876 per family unit without a bedroom, $46,859 per 

family unit with one bedroom, $56,979 per family unit 

with two bedrooms, $73,710 per family unit with three 

bedrooms, and $80,913 per family unit with four or more 

bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-type structures of sound standards of construction and design; (II) 

the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of the dollar limitations in subclause (I) (as such limitations may 

have been adjusted in accordance with section 206A of this 

Act) by not to exceed 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— 

(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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
194 

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 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) To be eligible for insurance, a blanket mortgage on any 

multi-family project of a mortgagor of the character described in 

subsection (d) shall involve a principal obligation in an amount— 

(2) * * * 

(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, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
195 

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 its special assistance functions under section 305 of this Act (as such section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved; and 

* * * * * * * 

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, ø2006¿ 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 321 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 1986 

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 availVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:35 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR238.007 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
196 

able from funds previously allocated for the MOS–1 project, commencing within 30 days of enactment. 

* * * * * * * 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary, Compensation for Air Carriers ................ ¥$22,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-Aid Highways ......... ¥185,500,000 

Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Highways ............ ¥3,000,000,000 

Federal Highway Administration .................................................... ¥390,050,734.53 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier 

Safety Operations and Programs ................................................. ¥3,469,553 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier 

Safety Grants ................................................................................ ¥11,260,214 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Motor 

Carrier Safety ................................................................................ ¥32,187,720 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Motor 

Carrier Safety Program ................................................................ ¥5,212,858 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations 

and Research ................................................................................. ¥12,197,113.60 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Driver Register ..................................................................................... ¥119,914.61 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway Traffic Safety Grants ........................................................................... ¥10,528,958 

Federal Transit Administration, Formula and Bus Grants .......... ¥28,660,920 

Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment Grants ....... ¥17,760,000 

Maritime Administration, Ship Construction ................................ ¥3,526,000 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Housing Certificate Fund ............................................................ ¥$1,300,000,000 

Rental Housing Assistance .......................................................... ¥27,600,000 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions proposed in the accompanying 

bill which may be considered, under certain circumstances, to 

change the application of existing law, either directly or indirectly. 

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for 

more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic 

authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended 

availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding of 

agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been finalized. 

In addition, the bill carries language, in some instances, permitting 

activities not authorized by law, or exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which has been carried in appropriations 

acts for many years. 

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception 

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the National 

Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared in 

many previous appropriations Acts. The bill includes a number of 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
197 

limitations on the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office 

furnishings. Similar limitations have appeared in many previous 

appropriations Acts. Language is included in several instances permitting certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended. 

The bill continues a number of general provisions applying to 

agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions applying 

government-wide. These provisions have been carried in the prior 

year appropriations bill, and some have been carried for many 

years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number of new general provisions. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ specifying certain amounts for individual offices of the 

Office of the Secretary and official reception and representation expenses, and specifying transfer authority among offices. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees; prohibits establishment of Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. Language is included for the Office of Civil 

Rights. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Transportation planning, research, and development’’ which provides funds 

for conducting transportation planning, research, systems development, development activities and making grants, and makes funds 

available until expended. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department of Transportation; provides that services shall be provided on a competitive 

basis, except for non-DOT entities; restricts the transfer for any 

funds to the Working Capital Fund with approval; and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 

program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business resource center’’ which limits the amount of loans that 

can be subsidized, and provides funds for administrative expenses. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Minority 

business outreach’’ specifying that funds may be used for business 

opportunities related to any mode of transportation, and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Payments to air carriers’’ that provides funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, allows the Secretary of Transportation to consider 

subsidy requirements when determining service to a community, 

and allows the Secretary to repay any funds borrowed from the 

Federal Aviation Administration to fund the essential air service 

program. 

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Compensation for air carriers’’ which rescinds funds. 

Section 101. The Committee continues a provision allowing the 

Secretary of Transportation to transfer unexpended sums from ‘‘OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.007 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
198 

fice of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses’’ to ‘‘Minority Business 

Outreach’’. 

Section 102. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

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

Section 103. The Committee continues a provision prohibiting the 

use of funds to implement an essential air service local cost participation program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides funds for operations, safety activities, 

staff offices and research activities related to commercial space 

transportation, administrative expenses for research and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of aircraft, subsidizing the cost 

of aeronautical charts and maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; funds for certain aviation program activities; and specifies transfer authority 

among offices. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

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

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that provides $8,500,000 for the contract tower cost 

sharing program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ permitting transfer of funds, as specified. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium 

pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time 

corresponding to the premium pay. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds to purchase store gift 

cards or gift certificates through a government-issued credit card. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
199 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds for acquisition, establishment technical support services, improvement by contract or 

purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental facilities and 

equipment; engineering and service testing, construction and furnishing of quarters and related accommodations at remote localities; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that provides funds from 

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for research, engineering, and 

development, including construction of experimental facilities and 

acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; and limits the 

availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides funds from the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund for airport planning and development; 

noise compatibility planning and programs; procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices 

and systems; grants authorized under section 41743 of title 49, 

U.S.C.; and inspection activities and administration of airport safety programs; and limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with obligations in excess of 

$3,600,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that prohibits funds for the replacement of baggage conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, or other airport improvements that are necessary to install bulk explosive detection systems. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides $80,676,000 for administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that specifies $10,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program, $18,712,000 for the airport 

technology research program and $10,000,000 for the Small Community Air Service Development Program. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
200 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that rescinds contract authority above 

the obligation limitation. 

Section 110. The Committee retains a provision requiring FAA to 

accept landing systems, lighting systems, and associated equipment 

procured by airports, subject to certain criteria. 

Section 111. The Committee retains a provision limiting the 

number of technical workyears at the Center for Advanced Aviation 

Systems Development to 375 in fiscal year 2008. 

Section 112. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting FAA 

from requiring airport sponsors to provide the agency ‘‘without 

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

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

specified exceptions. 

Section 113. The Committee continues a provision that allowing 

reimbursement for fees collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 

45303. 

Section 114. The Committee retains a provision allowing reimbursement of funds for providing technical assistance to foreign 

aviation authorities to be credited to the operations account. 

Section 115. The Committee continues a provision extending the 

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

commonly known as the ‘‘war risk insurance’’ program, for one additional year, from December 31, 2007 to December 31, 2008. In addition it extends the underlying authorization until December 31, 

2008. 

Section 116. The Committee retains a provision prohibiting funds 

to change weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 

Airport, Teterboro, New Jersey. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Limitation on administrative expenses’’ that limit the 

amount to be paid together with advances and reimbursements received. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that limits the obligations for Federalaid highways and highway safety construction programs; limits the 

amount available for the implementation or execution of programs 

for transportation research, which shall not apply to any authority 

previously made available for obligation; authorizes funds and obligation limitation associated with a portion of revenue aligned budget authority for the motor carrier safety grant program to be transferred to the Federal motor Carrier Safety Administration; allows 

the Secretary to charge, collect and spend fees for loan applications 

and that such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses 

and are not subject to any obligation limitation or limitation on administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, U.S.C., and 

which are available until expended. 

Language is included under the Federal Highway Administration, ‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ that liquidates contract authority and 

rescinds unobligated balances with certain limitations. 

Section 120. The Committee includes a provision that distributes 

obligation authority among federal-aid highway programs. 

Section 121. The Committee continues a provision that credits 

funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the 

federal-aid highways account. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
201 

Section 122. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed demonstration or 

high priority projects from the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102–240. 

Section 123. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed high priority 

projects from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 

Public Law 105–178. 

Section 124. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated funds authorized for the TIFIA program. 

Section 125. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for administrative expenses of the FHWA that will not be available for obligation because of the limitation on administrative expenses imposed in this 

Act and prior Acts. 

Section 126. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized for transportation research under title 5 of Public Law 109–59 that will not be available 

for obligation because of the limitation on obligations imposed on 

those funds in this Act and prior Acts. 

Section 127. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances made available for highway related safety 

grants in prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 128. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated balances associated with completed demonstration or 

high priority projects from previous appropriations acts. 

Section 129. The Committee includes a provision that provides 

additional funding to the transportation, community, and system 

preservation program. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor carrier safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract authorization, including specifying amounts available for the commercial driver’s license improvements program, border enforcement grants program, 

the performance and registration information system management 

program, the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 

deployment program, the safety data improvement program, and 

the commercial driver’s license information system modernization 

program; specifies amount for new entrant audits; and rescinds unobligated balances from prior years. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs’’, 

that provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of contract 

authorization, including specifying amounts available for research 

and technology programs and commercial motor vehicle operator’s 

grants; prohibits funds for outreach and education from being 

transferred; and rescinds unobligated balances from prior years. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Motor Carrier Safety’’ that rescinds unobligated 

balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, ‘‘National Motor Carrier Safety Program’’ that rescinds unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts. 

Section 130. The Committee continues a provision subjecting 

funds appropriated in this Act to the terms and conditions of secVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.007 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
202 

tion 350 of Public Law 107–87 and Section 6901 of Public Law 

110–28, including a requirement that the secretary submit a report 

on Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that limits the availability 

of funds and prohibits the planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations, limits the availability of funds, and provides a liquidation of contract authorization from the Highway Trust Fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘National driver register’’ that provides a limitation 

on obligations and a liquidation of contract authorization from the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations, limits the availability of funds, specifies the 

amounts for certain programs and provides a liquidation of contract 

authorization from the Highway Trust Fund. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use of 

funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ that limits an evaluation for the High Visibility Enforcement Program to $750,000. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the amount 

of funds available for technical assistance to states under section 

410. 

Section 140. The Committee continues a provision that provides 

funding for travel and related expenses for state management reviews and highway safety core competency development training. 

Section 141. The Committee includes a provision that rescinds 

unobligated contract authority authorized from the highway trust 

fund for NHTSA’s operation and research activities that will not be 

available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

Section 142. The Committee includes a provision that rescind unobligated contract authority authorized for the national driver register that will not be available for obligation because of limitations 

on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

Section 143. The Committee includes a provision that rescind unobligated contract authority authorized from the highway trust 

fund for NHTSA’s highway safety grant programs that will not be 

available for obligation because of limitations on obligations imposed on those funds in previous acts. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Safety and operations’’ limiting the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad research and development’’ limiting the availability of 

funds. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ authorizing 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
203 

the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 and 513 of the Railroad Revitalization 

and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration for 

the ‘‘Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program’’ as authorized by section 9002 of Public Law 109–59. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to make 

quarterly grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation; 

allows the Secretary to approve funding only after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route; ensures that each 

grant request is accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection, and capital expenditure projection; requires the 

Corporation to achieve savings through operational efficiencies; requires the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 

to provide quarterly reports to the Congress on estimates of the 

savings due to operational reforms; requires the Corporation to 

submit to Congress the status of its plan to improve the financial 

performance of food and beverage service as well as first class service, including sleeper car service as well as a report on progress 

compared with its targets provided in its fiscal year 2007 plan; requires the Corporation to submit a detailed business plan that includes targets for ridership, revenues, and capital and operating 

expenses as well as monthly reports regarding the status of the 

business plan; requires that contracts entered into by the Corporation will be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia; requires the Corporation to follow the provisions the direct loan 

agreement; and prohibits funds to support any route with a discounted fare of more than 50 percent off the normal peak fare, unless the operating loss is the result of a discount covered by a 

State. 

Language is included providing funds for Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General. 

Language is included under the Federal Railroad Administration, 

‘‘Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that allows the Secretary of Transportation to 

make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for 

the maintenance and repair of capital infrastructure and debt service; allows the Secretary to retain some funds to be used for oversight; bars funds under this section to be used for operating losses; 

restricts the use of funds unless they have been approved by the 

Secretary or are contained in the Corporation’s business plan; provides financial incentives that can be used for capital improvements if the Corporation demonstrates operational savings and 

meets ridership and revenue targets; provides funds for the development and implementation of a managerial cost accounting system; and requires the establishment of a common definition for 

‘‘state of good repair’’ on the Northeast Corridor. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
204 

The Committee includes new language under Federal Railroad 

Administration, ‘‘Intercity Passenger Rail Program’’ as recommended in the President’s budget that establishes and provides 

funding for an Intercity Passenger Rail Grant program. 

Section 150. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

FRA to purchase promotional items for Operation Lifesaver. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ specifying an amount for administrative expenses and requires approval for central account transfers. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative Expenses’’ prohibiting funds for a permanent office of 

transit security; specifying the amount to reimburse the IG for certain costs, and directing the submission of the annual report on 

new starts. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ that provides a limitation on obligations 

from the Highway Trust Fund, liquidation of contract authorization 

for the operating expenses of the agency, limits the availability of 

funds, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Research and University Centers’’ that limits the availability of funds 

and specifies the amounts for certain offices and programs. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ that limits the availability of funds, 

specifies certain amounts for specific projects, and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Section 160. The Committee continues the provision that exempts previously made transit obligations from limitations on obligations. 

Section 161. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ 

and bus and bus facilities under ‘‘Formula and Bus Grants’’ in 

prior year appropriations Acts to be used in this fiscal year. 

Section 162. The Committee continues the provision that allows 

for the transfer of prior year appropriations from older accounts to 

be merged into new accounts with similar, current activities. 

Section 163. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

unobligated funds for projects under ‘‘Capital Investment Grants’’ 

to be used in this fiscal year for activities eligible in the year the 

funds were appropriated. 

Section 164. The Committee recommends a new provision as proposed in the budget request that allows FTA to provide grants for 

100 percent of the net capital cost of a factory-installed or retrofitted hybrid electric system in a bus. 

Section 165. The Committee includes a new provision for grants 

under the clean fuel Program. 

Section 166. The Committee includes a provision which repeals 

a fiscal year 1986 funding prohibition regarding a subway system 

in Los Angeles, CA. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that authorizes expenditures, contracts, and commitments as may be necessary. 

Language is included under the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ‘‘Operations and Maintenance’’ that provides 

funds derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
205 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Security Program’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Operations and Training’’ that provides dedicated funds for salaries and 

benefits of employees of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, capital improvements at the United States Merchant Marine 

Academy, and the State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance 

and Repair; and limits the availability of some funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Ship Disposal’’ that limits the availability of funds. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Maritime 

Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account’’ that provides for the 

transfer to Operations and Training and rescinds unobligated balances. 

Language is included under Maritime Administration, ‘‘Ship Construction Program’’ that rescinds unobligated balances. 

Section 170. The Committee continues a provision that allows 

the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services and 

make repairs to any lease, contract, or occupancy involving government property under the control of MARAD and retal payments 

shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Section 171. The Committee continues a provision that prohibits 

obligations incurred during the current year from construction 

funds in excess of the appropriations contained in this Act or in 

any appropriations Act. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ which specifies 

the amount derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ which limits 

the availability of a certain amount and allows up to $1,200,000 in 

fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Hazardous materials safety’’ that credits 

certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and other 

activities incurred in performance of hazardous materials exemptions and approval functions. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ which specifies the 

amounts derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund and the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund, and limits their period of availabilitiy. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ that requires the agency to 

fund the one-call state grant program. 

Language is included under Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness Grants’’ which 

specifies the amount derived from the Emergency Preparedness 

Fund, limits the availability of some funds, and prohibits funds 

from being obligated by anyone other than the Secretary or his designee. 

Language is included under Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration, ‘‘Research and development’’ that limits the availability of funds and credits to the appropriation funds received 

from States and other sources for expenses incurred for training. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
206 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation. Language is also included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that authorizes the Office of Inspector 

General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and 

ticket agents. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Sala- ries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,250,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 

Section 180. The Committee continues the provision allowing the 

Department of Transportation to use funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by 

law. 

Section 181. The Committee continues the provision limiting appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for 

an Executive Level IV. 

Section 182. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and Presidential personnel assigned 

on temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation. 

Section 183. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds for the implementation of section 404 of title 23, United 

States Code. 

Section 184. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

recipients of funds made available in this Act from releasing personal information, including social security number, medical or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or 

motor vehicle record, without express consent of the person to 

whom such information pertains; and prohibits the withholding of 

funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision. 

Section 185. The Committee continues the provision allowing 

funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 

Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 

from states, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 

private sources to be used for expenses incurred for training may 

be credited to each agency’s respective accounts. 

Section 186. The Committee continues the provision authorizing 

the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of any preferred 

stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

Section 187. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

funds in Title I of this Act from being issued for any grant unless 

the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business 

days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 

funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced 

by the department or its modal administrations. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
207 

Section 188. The Committee continues a provision for the Department of Transportation allowing funds received from rebates, refunds, and similar sources to be credited to appropriations. 

Section 189. The Committee continues a provision allowing 

amounts from improper payments to a third party contractor that 

are lawfully recovered by the Department of Transportation to be 

available to cover expenses incurred in recovery of such payments. 

Section 190. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Monterey, California, highway bypass included in 

Public Law 102–143. 

Section 191. The Committee includes a new provision that clarifies funding for a Marlboro Township, New Jersey, highway project 

included in section 378 of Public Law 106–346. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-based rental assistance’’, which designates 

funds for various programs, activities, and purposes, and specifies 

the uses and availability of such funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Tenant-based rental assistance’’, which specifies 

funds for certain programs and limits the use of certain funds; 

specifies the methodology for allocation of renewal funding; directs 

the Secretary to the extent possible to pro rate each public housing 

agency’s (PHA) allocation; directs that those PHAs participating in 

Moving to Work, shall be funded according to that agreement; 

specifies the amount for additional rental subsidy due to unforeseen emergencies and portability; provides that additional tenant 

protection rental assistance costs be funded by prior year unobligated balances; provides funding for incremental vouchers for nonelderly disabled families and homeless veterans provides for the 

transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund; specifies the 

amounts available to the Secretary to allocate to PHA that need 

additional funds and for fees; provides the criteria to allocate a portion of Administrative Fees; and directs that all funds shall be only 

for activities related to the provision of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under section 8. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing certificate fund’’, which rescinds prior year 

funds; allows the Secretary to rescind funds from other accounts if 

there are insufficient unobligated balances; and directs the Secretary to report where the rescission is taken. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public housing capital fund’’, which limits the availability of funds; limits the delegation of certain waiver authorities 

and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; specifies 

the total amount available for certain activities; prohibits funds 

from being used for certain purposes; and specifies the amount for 

grants, support services, service coordinators and congregate services, to support the costs of administrative and judicial receiverships, and to support the ongoing Public Housing Financial and 

Physical Assessment activities of the Real Estate Assessment Center. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
208 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Public housing operating fund’’, which sets the basis 

for the allocation of funds and prohibits the use of funds under certain conditions. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native American Housing Block Grants’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies the formula for allocation; 

specifies the amounts for technical assistance and capacity building, to support the inspection of Indian housing units, administrative expenses, to subsidize the total principal amount of any notes, 

and the cost of guaranteed notes, which are defined in section 502 

of the Congressional budget Act of 1974. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant’’, which limits the availability of funds and specifies the amount for training 

and technical activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a 

dedicated amount for administrative expenses and allows for its 

transfer to ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund Program 

Account’’, which limits the availability of funds; specifies how to define the costs of modifying loans; specifies the amount and availability of funds to subsidize total loan principal; and provides a 

dedicated amount for administrative expenses and allows for its 

transfer to ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS’’, 

which limits availability of funds, sets forth certain requirements 

for the allocation and renewal of funds and contracts, and specifies 

funds available for training, oversight, and technical assistance activities, and the amount available for transfer to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Community development fund’’, which specifies the 

allocation of certain funds; limits the use and availability of certain 

funds; specifies the amount made available for grants to federallyrecognized Indian tribes, emergencies, Economic Development Initiatives with certain restrictions, and neighborhood initiatives with 

certain restrictions. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Home investment partnerships program’’, which 

limits the availability of funds; specifies the allocation of certain 

funds for certain purposes; and provides for the transfer of funds 

to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity 

Program’’, which limits the availability of funds and specifies the 

allocation of certain funds for certain purposes. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Homeless assistance grants’’, which limits the availVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.008 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
209 

ability of funds; establishes certain minimum funding and matching requirements; specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; directs the Secretary to renew contracts under certain conditions; requires grantees to integrate homeless programs 

with other social service providers; and provides for the transfer of 

funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Project-Based Rental Assistance’’, which limits the 

availability of funds; specifies the amount for certain programs; 

specifies the allocation of certain funds for certain purposes; and 

provides for the transfer of funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for the elderly’’, which specifies the allocation of certain funds; designates certain funds to be used only for 

certain grants; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions 

governing contract terms; and provides for the transfer of funds to 

the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Housing for persons with disabilities’’, which specifies the allocation of certain funds; allows funds to be used to 

renew certain contracts; allows the Secretary to waive certain provisions governing contract terms; and provides for the transfer of 

funds to the Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Rental Housing Assistance’’, which limits the availability of funds and rescinds funds. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Manufactured housing fees trust fund’’, which limits 

the availability of funds and permits fees to be assessed, modified, 

and collected, and permits temporary borrowing authority from the 

General Fund of the Treasury. 

Language is included under the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account’’, which sets a loan principal limitation; limits the obligations 

to make direct loans; specifies funds for specific purposes; allows 

for the transfer of funds ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, and the Working Capital Fund; allows for additional 

contract expenses as guaranteed loan commitments exceed certain 

levels. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘General and Special Risk Program Account’’, which 

limits the amount of commitments to guarantee loans; specifies 

funds for specific purposes; and allows for the transfer of funds 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, and the 

Working Capital Fund. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Government National Mortgage Association’’, which 

limits new commitments to issue guarantees, specifies amounts for 

administrative expenses, and allows for the transfer of funds to 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Policy Development and Research’’, which limits the 

availability of funds; specifies funds for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing Initiative, and that related activiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR238.008 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
210 

ties shall be administered by the Office of Policy Development and 

Research; and specifies the amount for grants. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Fair housing and equal opportunity’’, which limits 

the availability of funds, authorizes the Secretary to assess and collect fees, and places restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying 

activities. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Lead Hazard Control’’, which limits the 

availability of funds, specifies the amount of funds for specific purposes, specifies the treatment of certain grants, and specifies recipient matching and application requirements. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Management and Administration’’, which specifies 

the allocation of funds; identifies the transfer to ‘‘Management and 

Administration’’; sets forth certain authorities of, and requirements 

on, the office of the Chief Financial Officer; defines the point of obligation of funds; provides for funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund; and directs the Secretary to fill certain vacancies. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Working Capital Fund’’, which limits the purpose 

and availability of funds, including funds transferred. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Inspector General’’, which specifies a certain amount provided from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration, and directs that the IG shall have independent 

authority over all personnel issues within the office. 

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, ‘‘Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’’, 

which limits the availability of certain funds, specifies the amounts 

for certain activities, and permits temporary borrowing authority 

from the General Fund of the Treasury. 

Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment factors. 

Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair Housing Act. 

Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 

HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain States. 

Section 204 continues language requiring funds appropriated to 

be distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989. 

Section 205 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the availability of funds subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the Housing Act of 1950. 

Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding allocation of funds in excess of the budget estimates. 

Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years, regarding the expenditure of funds for corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation Control Act. 

Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years, requiring submission of a spending plan for technical assistance, training 

and management improvement activities prior to the expenditure 

of funds. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
211 

Section 209 continues language requiring the Secretary to provide quarterly reports on uncommitted, unobligated and excess 

funds in each departmental program and activity. 

Section 210 extends a technical amendment included in the fiscal 

year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation of HOPWA 

funds in the Philadelphia and Raleigh-Cary metropolitan areas. A 

proviso is added to allow a state to administer the HOPWA program in the event that a local government is unable to undertake 

the HOPWA grants management functions. 

Section 211 continues language requiring HUD to submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

on the number of Federally assisted units under lease and the per 

unit cost of these units. 

Section 212 continues language setting certain requirements for 

the Department’s annual congressional justification of appropriations. 

Section 213 continues language carried in previous year elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for persons with disabilities upon turnover. 

Section 214 relates to state authority regarding participation on 

housing boards. 

Section 215 authorizes the transfer of project-based assistance in 

specific circumstances. 

Section 216 continues language in precious acts specifying the allocation of Indian Block grants to Native Alaskan recipients. 

Section 217 continues language carried in previous years elsewhere in this title requiring public housing authorities to continue 

to reserve incremental vouchers funded in previous years for family 

unification upon turnover. 

Section 218 prohibits the IG from changing the basis on which 

the audit of GNMA is conducted. 

Section 219 clarifies eligibility for students in the Section 8 program. 

Section 220 lifts the cap on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages 

until September 30, 2008. 

Section 221 increases the FHA multifamily loan limit. The Committee does not recommend several new administrative provisions 

proposed in the budget to amend various housing authorization 

statutes. 

TITLE III—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Language is included for the Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows 

for the credit to the appropriation of funds received for publications 

and training expenses. 

Language is included for the Federal Maritime Commission, 

‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for services authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of passenger motor vehicles, uniforms 

and allowances, and official reception and representation expenses. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that provides funds for hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 

3109, uniforms or allowances therefore, and official reception and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
212 

representation expenses; and rescinds prior year unobligated balances. 

Language is included under National Transportation Safety 

Board, ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ that allows funds provided herein 

to be used to pay for FY08 costs associated with a 2001 capital 

lease. 

Language is included for the United States Interagency Council 

on Homelessness, ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ that provides funds for 

salaries, travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and consultants. 

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT 

Section 401. The Committee continues the provision requiring 

pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in this Act or 

previous appropriations Acts. 

Section 402. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act. 

Section 403. The Committee continues the provision prohibiting 

obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of 

funds unless expressly so provided herein. 

Section 404. The Committee continues the provision limiting consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement contracts. 

Section 405. The Committee continues a provision specifying reprogramming procedures by subjecting the establishment of new offices and reorganizations to the reprogramming process. 

Section 406. The Committee continues the provision providing 

that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for 

certain purposes. 

Section 407 continues a provision requiring a report from all 

agencies and departments funded under this Act to the Committees 

on Appropriations on all sole source contracts by no later than July 

31, 2008. 

Section 408 continues the provision prohibiting federal training 

not directly related to the performance of official duties. 

Section 409. The Committee includes a provision prohibiting 

funds for contractors unless they participate in the basic pilot program described in section 403 (a) of 8 U.S.C. 1324a note. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
213 

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided 

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and 

local governments. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
214 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 061 HR238.058
215 

EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the following congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 

as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
216 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 062 HR238.059
217 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 063 HR238.060
218 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 064 HR238.061
219 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 065 HR238.062
220 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 066 HR238.063
221 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 067 HR238.064
222 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 068 HR238.065
223 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 069 HR238.066
224 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 070 HR238.067
225 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 071 HR238.068
226 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 072 HR238.069
227 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 073 HR238.070
228 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 074 HR238.071
229 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 075 HR238.072
230 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 076 HR238.073
231 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 077 HR238.074
232 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 078 HR238.075
233 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 079 HR238.076
234 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 080 HR238.077
235 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 081 HR238.078
236 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 082 HR238.079
237 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 083 HR238.080
238 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 084 HR238.081
239 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 085 HR238.082
240 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 086 HR238.083
241 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 087 HR238.084
242 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 088 HR238.085
243 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 089 HR238.086
244 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 090 HR238.087
245 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 091 HR238.088
246 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 092 HR238.089
247 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 093 HR238.090
248 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 094 HR238.091
249 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 095 HR238.092
250 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 096 HR238.093
251 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 097 HR238.094
252 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 098 HR238.095
253 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 099 HR238.096
254 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 HR238.097
255 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 HR238.098
256 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 HR238.099
257 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 HR238.100
258 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 HR238.101
259 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 004 HR238.001
260 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 005 HR238.002
261 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 006 HR238.003
262 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 007 HR238.004
263 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 008 HR238.005
264 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 009 HR238.006
265 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 010 HR238.007
266 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 011 HR238.008
267 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 012 HR238.009
268 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 013 HR238.010
269 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 014 HR238.011
270 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 015 HR238.012
271 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 016 HR238.013
272 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 017 HR238.014
273 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 018 HR238.015
274 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 019 HR238.016
275 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 020 HR238.017
276 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 021 HR238.018
277 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 022 HR238.019
278 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 023 HR238.020
(279) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF JERRY LEWIS AND JOSEPH K. 

KNOLLENBERG 

The fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Related Agencies bill funds a number of important and popular programs, however, the largest programs—surface transportation, aviation, and 

assisted housing—all stand on the brink of bankruptcy or authorization. Both constituencies, housing and transportation, proclaim 

the need for Federal funding, yet neither is willing to consider how 

the relative spending for housing and transportation programs fit 

into the overall spend and tax plan, and neither is willing to face 

reform and reorganization in order to deliver the best programs efficiently and effectively. 

How dire is the situation? The Highway Trust Fund will be over 

$4 billion in the red by the end of fiscal year 2009. The new Section 

8 bill which passed the House earlier this month will increase 

voucher spending by $2 billion over the next five years. These 

shortfalls and massive spending increases are not directed or 

caused by the Committee on Appropriations, but rather the spending for housing and transportation programs is directed by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, and as usual, the Committee 

on Appropriations is left holding the bag. However, there is simply 

not enough money in the general Treasury to make up for the well 

predicted shortfall and demand, and still meet critical funding 

needs in other areas. We warn, that without sensible and major 

intervention, plus an overhaul of House Rule 21(3), this Committee 

cannot and will not simply write a blank check. 

Further, the Committee cannot continue to rely on rescissions of 

prior year funds to fund these programs. The Committee relies on 

a $3 billion rescission of prior year highway contract authority to 

bring the bill within the 302(b) allocation. While highway rescissions have been used in years past, never before has the outlook 

for the Highway Trust Fund been so catastrophic. Another major flaw in this bill is the inclusion of a $1.3 billion 

rescission of prior year HUD appropriations. The bill includes this 

rescission in spite of the fact that HUD can not meet the requirement without severely cutting sensitive programs, including and 

specifically, the construction of facilities for elderly and disabled 

low income individuals. 

One principle reason is that the bill also includes language that 

prohibits the recapture of excess section 8 funds to be used toward 

meeting the rescission requirement, even though the amounts included for 2007 is significantly more than are needed to renew all 

estimated vouchers under the new methodology that the majority 

has adopted. HUD estimates that between $350 and $500 million 

in excess funding was enacted in 2007. 

Project based renewals are also not available for the rescission. 

In fact, HUD has estimated that its current 2007 contractual obliVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Jul 19, 2007 Jkt 036708 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR238.008 HR238

rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
280 

gations with project owners are a minimum of $1.8 billion more 

than the funds available in 2007 and the project based section 8 

program could be as much as $2.6 billion short in 2007. Hence, as 

currently envisioned, none of the section 8 program funds, which 

in total is two-thirds of HOD’s entire budget, are available for 

meeting the rescission. 

Therefore, HUD will have to reduce other programs with balances remaining from 2007 and prior year appropriations to meet 

the $1.3 billion rescission included in this bill. Because typically 

construction is a slow spend out program this means that programs 

such as elderly and disabled facility programs will have to be sacrificed to meet the rescission. This will be followed by reductions 

in Community Development Block Grants, HOPE VI grants and 

funds used to modernize public housing which also typically take 

more than one year to spend. 

However you look at it, this is a bad outcome and every measure 

must be taken to lessen or eliminate the reduction in these programs. First and foremost is the need to strike the preclusion of 

the recapture of clearly excess section 8 funds to renew vouchers 

that was included in this bill. What was clearly and deliberately 

provided by the Majority as excess funding in 2007 must be viewed 

as a lower priority than eliminating desperately needed low income 

elderly and disabled facilities. 

Second, the Congress needs to include language that allows HUD 

to fund project based contracts on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis rather than 

100 percent up front funding as is now the practice. Many contracts cross two fiscal years and up front funding is simply not 

needed. 

If both of the Minority recommendations were adopted, the rescission could be met with a minimum of disruption to other programs and the shortfall for the project based program would be 

greatly diminished or eliminated. 

The argument that the rescission was proposed by the Administration and Congress is only implementing the Administration’s 

proposal is disingenuous on two counts. First the Committee rejected every other Administration proposal to reduce funding and 

eliminate duplicative and low priority programs, all of which could 

have lessened the need for, or lowered the amount of, the rescission 

included to meet the Committee’s target funding level. 

Second, the Administration’s proposal was based on a very different methodology for renewing section 8 vouchers and project 

based contracts than was adopted by Congress long after the 2008 

budget was submitted to Congress. This new methodology was 

airdropped at the last minute into the Continuing Resolution and 

radically altered the way in which funds are distributed. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
281 

Finally as noted above, the funding levels for HUD are more 

than they should be or need to be. Many programs are duplicative 

of other programs, have a proven record of poor performance and 

have been eliminated or proposed for elimination for many years. 

Other critical programs could have been funded at higher levels or 

the reduction of prior year appropriations (rescission) could have 

been less had these programs been eliminated as proposed. We will 

continue to work to lessen the burden on the Committee to meet 

its target by emphasizing the need to eliminate low priority programs and focus scarce resources on high priority needs. 

JERRY LEWIS. 

JOE KNOLLENBERG. 

Æ 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with HEARING